[Bibulus-dev] An optimal \cite command for Bibulus

[Thomas Widmann]

[This is a courtesy copy of a Usenet posting -- not just a private email]

Hi there!

The Bibulus project (see p. 760 in TLC2) has reached a stage where we
really need to define the ultimate \cite command.  (It will not be a
problem to provide backwards compatibility, so please think only about
how such a command should look ideally.)

Since the number of people on the bibulus-dev mailing list is not
enormous, I thought it would be good to get feedback from c.t.t.

I believe the main requirement is that the same commands can be used
for all citation styles.  For instance, "This was first done by
\citet{knuth}." might generate i.a. the following:

     Numerical:     This was first done by Knuth [12].
     Num. footnote: This was first done by Knuth.¹²
     Alpha:         This was first done by Knuth [Knu86].
     Author-year:   This was first done by Knuth (1986).
     Footnote:      This was first done by Knuth.³
                      3) D.E. Knuth, The \TeX{}book, 1986.
     In text:       This was first done by Knuth (ibid).

This probably just requires a distinction between cite-in-text
(natbib \citet) and cite-in-brackets (natbib \citep), although it
possibly might be useful to split up \citet into cite-author (Knuth
[12]) and cite-title (\emph{The \TeX{}book} [12]).

There seems to be one largish problem with the natbib citation
commands, however:  It is possible to cite more than one title in one
citation (\citep{key1,key2} -> (Jones et al., 1990, 1992) or similar),
and it is possible to add some additional text such as a page number:
\citep[see][chap. 2]{key} -> (see Jones et al., 1990, chap. 2).  Alas,
these two features cannot be combined easily.

Camel seems to be able to combine two separate \source{...} commands
into one footnote, although I must admit I don't understand how this
is done.

Alternatively, one could have one grouping command with \cites within,
e.g.:
   \citegroupp{\cite[21]{key1} \cite[4]{key2}}

That would be very cumbersome for the majority of citations, however.

One could also try to allow some form of complex content within the
\cite command, such as:

   \citep{key1 (page 21); key2 (page 4)}

   \citep{key1/21;key2/4}

   \citep{[key1, 21] [key2, 4]}

The latter syntax might be ideal, since it would allow extra text
within, without having to use pre- and post-texts.

For instance, by specifying:

   \citep{For a summary see [lewis1968, 194-207]; for the Nationality
          Law see [davison1963, 262]}

one could get output like the following:

   69  For a summary see B. Lewis, _Emergence_, pp. 194-207; for the
       Nationality Law see Davison, _Reform_, p. 262.

(a real-life example from "Kosovo: A Short History").

Or is it silly to treat this as a long citation and not just a
footnote with citations in it?

Any ideas, comments and other feedback will be much appreciated!

/Thomas
-- 
Thomas Widmann          Bye-bye to BibTeX: join the Bibulus project now!
address@hidden                                <http://www.bibulus.org>
Glasgow, Scotland, EU     <http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/bibulus/>