Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes: > So, the (opinionated) useful defaults in biblatex are: > cite(s), parencite(s), footcite(s), texcite(s), fullcite, > footfullcite, nocite
Isn't footcite/footfullcite a choice made at the document's level instead of per citation? If that's the case, it could go in a keyword, e.g., #+LATEX_CITATION: :style footcite > Citation types for extracting parts: > citeauthor, citetitle, citeyear, citedate, citeurl, Can't this be attached to the key, as a filter? > From natbib: > citet (== textcite), citep (== parencite). > > Keys I don't care about, since they are quite biblatex specific: > smartcite, autocide, parentcite*, uppercase variants. *volcites(s) (any > objections?) > > In natbib: > citealt, citalp, starred variants > > So that's 17 support keys and two aliases. I guess this would deter most > authors from needing custom styles. Then what about [cite:command: common pre; pre1 @key1 post1; ... ; common post] where command is anything matching is constituted of alphanumeric characters only (this is just a guess, a proper regexp is yet to be determined). LaTeX back-end will see "command" and less advanced back-ends "cite", so that the same document can be exported through multiple back-ends. Also [cite: common pre; pre1 @key1 post1; ... ; common post] would be equivalent to [cite:default_command: common pre; pre1 @key1 post1; ... ; common post] where "default_command" would be set in a defcustom within "ox-latex.el". However, this syntax doesn't handle in-text citation for other back-ends than LaTeX. Hence the [@key post] proposal, or even @key [post], which I find more elegant than [citet: ...] / [citep: ...] > The default bibtex.el style generates keys like "%A%y:%t", so I think ":" > is no good, appealing as it is. Then "/" (filter) or "|" (pipe). Regards,