[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?
From: |
Rasmus |
Subject: |
Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git? |
Date: |
Fri, 08 Mar 2013 10:27:28 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden (Thomas S. Dye) writes:
> Rasmus <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Achim Gratz <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>>> Do you mean using something like this
>>>>
>>>> [[file:my.bib&key=key;prenote=note1;postnote=note2][key]]
>>>>
>>>> for the file: protocol
>>>
>>> This is a prime example of how _not_ to do this, IMHO. The file
>>> protocol is an established protocol that you shouldn't bolt any extra
>>> parameters on.
>>
>> I very much agree. The current "hacks" using links are annoying and
>> ugly, and if we were to do citations properly in Org—and I think we
>> should—it should NOT be using links (as Nicolas also pointed out).
>> It's a hack and shouldn't be made official.
>>
>> In my book it would seem 'natural' to strive towards the following:
>>
>> 1. It should be Bibtex-based. I.e. Bibtex should be the 'database'
>> or storage for citation information. It may be stored in
>> Org-Bibtex-whatever, but Bibtex should be the natural base.
>> 2. Citation selection should be possible via Reftex.
>> 3. It should look nice in the buffer. For instance, with the
>> current link hacks I am shown the pre or post notes in place of
>> the citation. Ideally, it should be able to specify a
>> reftex-cite-format string on how to display stuff in the buffer.
>> Notes should be viewable in an non-disturbing way.
>> Ideally, I would want to see something like:
>> (POSTFIX, Jensen, 1906, SUFFIX)
>> or
>> Jensen (POSTFIX, 1906, SUFFIX)
>> (If my memory serves me correctly this is how BibLatex places
>> notes).
>> (4. If we are to adopt LaTeX terminology we should adopt the
>> terminology of BibLatex as opposed to Natbib).
>
> Given that 1., 2., and 4. are possible with "link hacks" doesn't this
> leave just 3. in need of solution? If the current link syntax would
> take another function used to display the link, then wouldn't that solve
> 3.?
Indeed, but perhaps there is a better possible syntax. With Reftex
the the link-way is OK, but I still think that we should think about
whether there is a "Better Way"ᵀᴹ if Org was to add it officially.
There are some recent projects adding citation support for higher
level languages such as:
1. https://github.com/cboettig/knitcitations
2. http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/kcite/
–Rasmus
--
May the Force be with you
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, (continued)
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Nicolas Goaziou, 2013/03/07
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Bastien, 2013/03/07
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Achim Gratz, 2013/03/07
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Bastien, 2013/03/07
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Achim Gratz, 2013/03/07
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Rasmus Pank Roulund, 2013/03/08
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Rasmus, 2013/03/07
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Thomas S. Dye, 2013/03/07
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?,
Rasmus <=
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Thomas S. Dye, 2013/03/08
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, aaronecay, 2013/03/08
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Rasmus, 2013/03/08
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, aaronecay, 2013/03/08
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Bastien, 2013/03/09
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Aaron Ecay, 2013/03/19
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Nicolas Goaziou, 2013/03/09
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Jambunathan K, 2013/03/09
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Jambunathan K, 2013/03/09
- Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?, Thomas S. Dye, 2013/03/09