Hi Richard (again), 2015ko martxoak 2an, Richard Lawrence-ek idatzi zuen: > > Could we guess the backend from the file extension on the BIBLIOGRAPHY, > to keep things simple here? I don't use a citation manager, so I don't > know if this is possible for anything other than Bib(La)TeX. > > Also, as mentioned earlier, it would be really nice to support > org-bibtex as one of the reference database formats. (It's what I use, > so naturally it's what I think we should bless. :) This would allow > storing your reference database in-document.
I too use org-bibtex, and I agree that in-document references would be nice. My skeletal implementation supports only org-bibtex at the moment. > > Some things to think about: > > 1) Is there ever a need to mix reference database formats in the same > document (e.g., zotero and org-bibtex)? (I would think not, but my > needs are simple.) I think this is most likely in collaborative situations: you have your carefully curated org-bibtex database, and your co-author sends you a bunch of references in some other database format. I think it’s pretty easy to support (convert everything to bibtex and concat it all together). > > 2) Is there ever a need to mix multiple reference databases in the > *same* format (e.g., two different .bib files)? (I would think so, > given the existence in BibLaTeX of \addbibresource.) Certainly yes (this can be seen as a degenerate case of (1) above). > > 3) If the answer to either 1 or 2 is yes, how should we decide > precedence between multiple reference databases? (Two databases might > contain the same key.) Initially I think an admonition of “don’t do that.” Eventually, we could raise a warning (or error) on detecting multiply-defined keys. I think allowing, and trying to make sense of, multiple definitions is more trouble than it’s worth. -- Aaron Ecay
