Aaron Ecay <aarone...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi Rasmus, > > 2015ko martxoak 1an, Rasmus-ek idatzi zuen: >> >>> At this point, we probably need to implement a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword >>> (files) and BIBLIOGRAPHY_BACKEND (bibtex, zotero, jabref...) and provide >>> basic tools to handle citations in an Org document. >> >> Probably a CITATION_STYLE as well, e.g. "numeric", "author-year", etc. >> >> I'll try to look at biblatex support for ox-latex, which should be the >> easiest target, but ATM I'm a bit busy. > > If you have time, I’d appreciate your opinion on whether the approach > I’ve started of doing latex and non-latex together in ox-cite is a good > approach, or whether instead you’d rather handle latex within ox-latex.
Good that I didn't start hacking on ox-latex in the plain, but went for org-element instead :) I will check them out. I think ox-cite will be a beast. Still, since citation is a single object it should probably be in backends. E.g. export of inlinetasks are handled in backends. Still, general functionality and backend support and/or API should probably be in a separate library. WDYT? > Should we also support “plain” bibtex and natbib? I think John said that journals often require natbib. At this point I'm using biblatex only. For ox-latex, it might make sense to have a :citation-backend which is maps supported citations types to packages. Until somebody complains, we could support biblatex only. >> For bibtex-outside-of-latex, reftex-cite.el is decent, but not great¹. >> Still, it may be easier to fix it up that to write our own bibtex >> parser. > > It would also be possible to just use an external program like > citeproc-java. WDYT? This is the preferred method by far! The closer we can get to the latex citation where we just insert "naïve" commands the better IMO. —Rasmus -- In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice they are not
