[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: oc-biblatex and biblatex substyles

From: Thomas S. Dye
Subject: Re: oc-biblatex and biblatex substyles
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:14:26 -1000
User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 27.1

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

Another possibility it to write, e.g., "oc-biblatex-chicago.el" and
define a new ‘biblatex-chicago’ export processor, re-using most
functions from "oc-biblatex.el". It would probably only be necessary to
re-define ‘org-cite-biblatex-export-citation’ and

This is probably the path of least resistance for users who want to use 
biblatex-chicago out of the box, rather than as a basis for deriving a specific 

Here is the relevant section 4.51 of the biblatex-chicago manual:

With the addition of the author-date styles to the package, I have provided three keys for choosing which style to load, notes, authordate, and authordate-trad , one of which you put in the options to the \usepackage command. The default way of loading the notes + bibliography style has therefore slightly changed. With early versions of biblatex-chicago-notes , the standard way of loading the package was via a call to biblatex , e.g.:


Now, the default way to load the style, and one that will in the vast majority of standard cases produce the same results as the old invocation, will look like this:


(In point of fact, the previous biblatex-chicago loading method without the notes option will still work, but only because I’ve made the notes & bibliography style the default if no style is explicitly requested.) If you read through biblatex-chicago.sty, you’ll see that it sets a number of biblatex options aimed at following the Chicago specification, as well as setting a few formatting variables intended as reasonable defaults (see section 4.4.1, above). Some parts of this specification, however, are plainly more “suggested” than “required,” and indeed many publishers, while adopting the main skeleton of the Chicago style in citations, nonetheless maintain their own house styles to which the defaults I have provided do not conform.

If you only need to change one or two parameters, this can easily be done by putting different options in the call to biblatex-chicago or redefining other formatting variables in the preamble, thereby overriding the package defaults. If, however, you wish more substantially to alter the output of the package, perhaps to use it as a base for constructing another style altogether, then you may want to revert to the old style of invocation above. You’ll lose all the definitions in biblatex-chicago.sty, including those to which I’ve already alluded and also the code that sets the note number in-line rather than superscript in endnotes or footnotes. Also in this file is the code that calls cmsamerican.lbx , which means that you’ll lose all the Chicago-specific bibstrings I’ve defined unless you provide, in your preamble, a \DeclareLanguageMapping command adapted for your setup, on which see section 7 below and also §§ 4.9.1 and 4.11.8 in biblatex.pdf .

What you will not lose is the ability to call the package options annotation, strict, short, and noibid (section 4.4.3, above), in case these continue to be useful to you when constructing your own modifications. There’s very little code, therefore, actually in biblatex-chicago.sty , but I hope that even this minimal separation will make the package somewhat more adaptable. Any suggestions on this score are, of course, welcome.

All the best,

Thomas S. Dye https://tsdye.online/tsdye

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]