[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: citations: org-cite vs org-ref 3.0

From: Max Nikulin
Subject: Re: citations: org-cite vs org-ref 3.0
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 00:10:53 +0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0

On 21/03/2022 18:51, John Kitchin wrote:

citenum and bibentry are the only two I am not sure have a CSL analog.

I read your messages once more and I should say that I feel some disagreement of this one (I removed most of it) and the earlier and longer one from Sun, 20 Mar 2022 20:31:29 -0400 m2sfrc149c.fsf@andrew.cmu.edu">https://list.orgmode.org/m2sfrc149c.fsf@andrew.cmu.edu

I admit that org-ref is carefully tuned to your workflow. I hope, it is possible to left aside decomposition of org-cite into modules for some time.

Let's assume org-cite with natbib backend for citations and org-ref for cross-references. It seems, a couple of missed styles currently is not a problem due to the defcustom for the mapping.

Are there still any technical limitations that prevent getting in the exported LaTeX file the same citation commands as for org-ref?

In particular I am worrying concerning https://github.com/jkitchin/org-ref README (and the same phrase from the earlier message):

org-cite does not meet my citation and technical document publishing needs, and it was not possible to integrate it into org-ref without compromising those.
Does it refer to exported result or to convenience of working with citations? Would it help if it were possible to choose style by its natbib command?

I see that you do not like org-cite styles, but I can not figure out what are the real blockers that prevent producing documents having the same quality.

reply via email to

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