[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: Bruce D'Arcus
Subject: Re: citations: org-cite vs org-ref 3.0
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:16:42 -0400

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 8:37 AM Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 02:40, John Kitchin wrote:
> > Max Nikulin writes:
> >> On 21/03/2022 18:51, John Kitchin wrote:
> >
> > Rather than rehash a lot of experiences, I really encourage you to try
> > writing a processor that can support this. Or even, try modifying
> > org-ref-cite to support it. Not as some thought experiment about what
> > should be possible, but an actual experiment that is worked out.
> I have some ideas for links, other inline objects and export attributes
> that I should try before.
> >> 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.
> >
> > I have taken this out of the readme. I still agree with the sentiment,
> > but my needs are not the same as others (for example, I include in my
> > needs include ease of support and development, which is not a user
> > need), and it is possible to meet some basic needs fully.
> John, in another message (Sun, 27 Mar 2022 13:00:40 -0400)
> m24k3jnq0k.fsf@andrew.cmu.edu">https://list.orgmode.org/m24k3jnq0k.fsf@andrew.cmu.edu you clearly
> stated a technical limitation that is a real reason why org-cite is not
> an option for you and for some other users: performance has not been
> optimized for large BibTeX databases. It is deserved to be mentioned.

FWIW, Ihor posted a patch related to this a week or so ago.

> You even have managed to convince me that, besides adding missing style
> names, some existing ones should be adjusted. noauthor/bare for citeyear
> example makes for me much more sense ...

This does need some attention, but there are wrinkles here.

Citeyear is specific to author-date styles, while noauthor is intended
to be more general.

Hence, initially "noauthor".

This indeed was influenced by CSL implementations like Zotero and
pandoc, which have a notion of "suppress author".

But the names are kind of awkward admittedly, and Andras Simonyi
subsequently added a "year" style in oc-csl.

You can see the conversation about it here.


I think it's probably a good idea to add "year" to the latex processors too.

I will reproduce Denis' explanation from that linked comment here:

The reasoning behind "noauthor" vs "year" was that our priority was
portability between different classes of citation styles. If we have
this item "John, Doe. /A book/. 2020." the variant "noauthor" can be
used to render this consistently.

a) author-year: "(2020)"
b) author-title: "(/A book/)"

Author-title in footnote: "/A book/. 2020."

Here, it's not so much about what information should be rendered, but
rather what should be ommitted.

"Year" would be much less portable. That doesn't mean that "year"
couldn't be legitimate, in the sense of "I really need the year here".
But that raises another question: How will citeproc-el know where this
year is coming from, and how the year has to be formatted? That will
have to be hardcoded in the processor as styles contain no information
about this.



reply via email to

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