On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> wrote: > Hi, > > First, thanks for writing this up, Nicolas. Org has been a bit slow > lately, at least for my part. >
ditto. and thanks to eveyrone in the thread for their input. > > > > > ** Citations > > > > Development apparently stopped for some reason. We have a citation > > syntax for Org in wip-cite and some work done in wip-cite-awe and > > probably elsewhere. > > > > I think we could at least provide features defined in Org Ref using the > > new syntax (minus hydra/helm related functions). > > > > We don't need a silver bullet. Just something with a non-empty user > > base, and extensible. In any case, the work done so far shouldn't be > > wasted. > > This is something I care deeply about, and I would like to work on it. > I’m a bit short on time these days, but still it’s the most important > missing feature IMO. > > We sort of got stuck on syntax discussions the last time (besides > [cite]/[(cite)]), as well as tool choices (citeproc-java vs. some > org-specific Haskell implementation). > > I would suggest we start with LaTeX, although it contains some danger of > making choices that are hard to make work with citeproc. I’m not sure how > far Aaron got on this work. > > > I also regard this as the most important missing feature from Org. From my perspective, latex-centred approaches are I guess fine but don't immediately solve any issues for me. My use cases are (a) publication to the web, either of papers or, especially, of teaching resources; and (b) circulation of scholarly work in .docx or (in rare best-case scenarios) markdown. I would really be grateful if work on citations left the door open for these formats, which are going to be with us for a long time. Again, thanks to all you guys for your work on this. m
