Jambunathan K <kjambunat...@gmail.com> writes:
> Getting Citation right to cater to general needs is going to be complex.
> This is mainly because
>
> 1. Org's object syntax is very rudimentary and not "extensible"
> 2. "real-world" citations may need some annotations page number etc.
>
> I think it is good to *atleast make a move* in standardizing the cite
> elements. My gut feeling is that cite objects - for now - should be
> coded as \cite { } latex objects. This specifically means that link
> syntax for cite should NOT BE ENCOURAGED (or STRONGLY DISCOURAGED).
I understand. You can still use ox-bibtex.el for now, and just ignore
all the "[[cite:...]]" part.
> As an aside, I am inclined to think of cite objects as "special class"
> of "footnote" elements.
I tend to agree. There was a discussion on the ML about a possible
syntax. I think it is a bit early to set it in stone anyway. As you
said, the point here is to make a move towards standardization, even if
it means using \cite{...} and `defadvice' for now.
> Does the author have copyright assignments for contributing to Emacs?
>
> Taru Karttunen <tar...@taruti.net>
>
> As a personal policy, I don't want to touch a file which wouldn't end up
> in Emacs proper.
>
> Any changes that I make to Emacs - that includes Org-mode - is
> *guaranteed* to end up in Emacs proper. It's going to happen in it's
> own time.
Nobody can guarantee that code relative to bibliographies will become
mainstream. What if normalization fails, for one reason or another?
Anyway, I don't think assignment is a problem. If we decide to handle
bibliographies in Org core, ox-bibtex will have to be rewritten anyway
(and will become ox-bibliography or something like that). Though, it
would obviously be best if original "org-bibtex.el" author (Cc'ed) had
already signed FSF papers.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
