John Kitchin <jkitc...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: > I clearly had some super important academic work to do today, so instead > I played around with citations ;) > > I am not yet convinced a citation processor will get us where we want > because of the complexity of the external dependencies, and the > potential/probable need for us to define new CSL files for different > backends, or at a minimum for org-formatted citations and > bibliographies. Hacking bst files is no fun, and it doesn't look like > CSL files are much better! Plus you have to find them and install them > somehow. > > I wanted to get a sense for how well I could manipulate citation and > bibliography format from org-ref with a bibtex database. The answer is > it is pretty easy, not perfect, but pretty good, and could certainly be > made better with dedicated effort. You can see how here, and some > discussion about its limitations: > > http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu/blog/2015/12/03/Exporting-numbered-citations-in-html-with-unsorted-numbered-bibliography/ > > I am pointing this out because I think the approach I used could allow > for plugins for different database backends, different ways to get the > replacements, etc... you could substitute org-ref links for the citation > syntax at some point with no real loss of generality. org-ref could > insert the new syntax as soon as it is available in a main org branch. > Some code will have to be rewritten to get the key under point, but that > probably won't be too hard. > > We could provide a solution like this for some backends, using bibtex as > the database, for pretty immediate use. Then other more advanced > solutions could come along that would likely be superior in output > quality if they use real citation processors, but only if there are CSLs > for different backends (if I understand how they work). These would be > optional, and only needed if higher quality and flexibility in output > was required. > > What do you think?
My guess is that it is orders of magnitudes harder with author (year) and footnotes and whatnot. But bibtex.el helps in some regards (indeed in an ancestor to this thread we discussed whether bibtex.el + reftex.el could be used). Then comes the formatting and sorting of the bibliography, also when using different languages (Marcin talks about this) or types of publications (bibtex.el lists 27 when you switch the dialect to biblatex)... As a small example comes out of your example which has mistakes such as "17()". The fact that the documentation of biblatex-chicago (a biblatex *style*) is 149 pages might also serve as a warning. Note, I use a similar system myself when exporting citations outside of latex (lookup stuff from bibtex and cross-fingers), but fitted to author-year. It’s certainly doable when you know your fixed needs, but it is harder to convince yourself it’s a good general solution. It would be nice if you could prove me wrong. Rasmus -- What will be next?
