On Friday, 20 Aug 2021 at 09:47, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> Though for ODT, you might want to look into oc-csl; citeproc-el just
> got improved ODF support.
So I decided to try this out. Not working for me, but early days in
debugging. For some reason, when I export to ODT, the "format" for the
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:21 AM John Kitchin wrote:
> I think bibtex-completion is agnostic of ivy or helm, and doesn't require
> either of them to work. You can use it for candidates to selectrum if you
> want, and the other many features it offers for notes, pdf, etc...
Sorry; meant to
I think bibtex-completion is agnostic of ivy or helm, and doesn't require
either of them to work. You can use it for candidates to selectrum if you
want, and the other many features it offers for notes, pdf, etc...
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:07 AM Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> I think so.
>
> I
I think so.
I actually just started the process of removing the bibtex-completion
dependency.
Give it a try in any case. It should work well with org-cite, and you
can even use pieces of org-ref-cite if you prefer that to my
(currently) more minimal embark-based approach.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021
On Friday, 20 Aug 2021 at 09:47, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> Though for ODT, you might want to look into oc-csl; citeproc-el just
> got improved ODF support.
Thank you for the heads up on this. Looks promising for those that
regularly export to ODT!
In my case, I just need a quick and dirty draft so
Though for ODT, you might want to look into oc-csl; citeproc-el just
got improved ODF support.
https://github.com/andras-simonyi/citeproc-el/pull/45
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 9:46 AM Eric S Fraga wrote:
>
> Ignore my question. The following works (had to look at the source,
> which I should have
Ignore my question. The following works (had to look at the source,
which I should have done in the first place, of course ):
#+cite_export: basic numeric nb
Thank you and back to your normal programme ... ;-)
--
: Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.50, Org release_9.4.6-625-ge7454c
: Latest paper
Hello all,
A quick question: I am exporting to ODT and am happy with the basic cite
exporter. I want numeric citations. Does oc-basic allow me to somehow
specify that the reference (in the text) be numeric by default and not
authors and year? I can use [@cite/nb:...] with
#+cite-export: basic
Is there a timeline for when this will be available in orgmode.org/elpa or
other package repository? I tried it today, but it doesn't seem to be there
yet, at least not in this version:
Org mode version 9.4.6 (9.4.6-10-gee652a-elpaplus @
On Friday, 9 Jul 2021 at 09:36, William Denton wrote:
> Is the citation work big enough to move the version number for the
> next full release to 10?
I guess it doesn't break anything (i.e. fully backwards compatible) so
no real need to bump the version number?
--
: Eric S Fraga via Emacs
Is the citation work big enough to move the version number for the next full
release to 10?
Bill
--
William Denton
https://www.miskatonic.org/
Librarian, artist and licensed private investigator.
On Friday, 9 Jul 2021 at 15:58, Timothy wrote:
> This could be as simple as a way of handling links to named
> images/tables/etc. when exporting.
Maybe start a new thread, with a clear indication of what is missing in
the current version with respect to referencing. I use internal
references
Hi Nicolas,
In light of all the thoughts expressed on referencing, I no longer think it's a
good idea to have referencing capabilities in wip-cite-new.
I think referencing should get a bit of attention, as citation has here, but a
much smaller separate effort now appears more appropriate to
On 8 July 2021, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
And the implementation challenges raised by John Kitchin and Joost
Kremers (namely the candidate list is different) make this better to
deal with using a different mechanism.
As a package developer that supports org-cite, I really don't want to
be worrying
Timothy writes:
> Lastly, an example of what I’d expect when exporting to ascii (with three
> example syntaxes):
>
> ┌
> │ #+name: sometab
> │ #+caption: Some table
> │ | a | b |
> │ | c | d |
> │
> │ Hey, look at [[sometab]]. (or)
> │ Hey, look at [cite:#sometab]. (or)
> │ Hey, look at
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 9:43 AM Timothy wrote:
>
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> > At this point, I don’t have enough understanding of the problem to have
> > an opinion. IIUC, your example does not even mention citations. How
> > should it be used, what should be the output in LaTeX, and in UTF-8
> > export?
Hi Nicolas,
> At this point, I don’t have enough understanding of the problem to have
> an opinion. IIUC, your example does not even mention citations. How
> should it be used, what should be the output in LaTeX, and in UTF-8
> export? This is not clear to me.
>
> What can I say however is: if
Okay, thank you. I'll have to train myself to use C-c ' in more
situations (as I didn't know it would work on #+include etc. lines).
--
: Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.50, Org release_9.4.6-579-gfdb98a
: Latest paper written in org: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.05096
Hello,
Eric S Fraga writes:
> Why C-c ' and not C-c C-o to be consistent with the rest of org? For
> me, it seems that in the rest of org, C-c ' is for editing something;
> C-c C-o is for opening/visiting/following.
Good question.
is "remote editing", is "follow link".
In this situation,
On Thursday, 8 Jul 2021 at 02:17, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> I think the "wip-cite-new" branch is in good shape now. As
> a consequence, I'd like to merge it tomorrow.
Yes please! I've been using it on and off (having to switch branches)
for some time now and it is working very well. It needs to
On Thursday, 8 Jul 2021 at 11:47, Timothy wrote:
> wip-cite-new deals with citing from bibliographies, but I don't think it
> deals with within-document referencing --- should it?
Are these not orthogonal activities? Doesn't org already support
in-document references? I may be missing
My intuition is that crossrefs are separate from the citations. In org-ref,
they are separate link types like ref:xxx, pageref:xxx. eqref:xxx, etc.
They also use a different source of candidates than cites do.
John
---
Professor John Kitchin (he/him/his)
Doherty
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 6:26 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Timothy writes:
>
> > Bruce D'Arcus writes:
> >
> >>> wip-cite-new deals with citing from bibliographies, but I don't think it
> >>> deals with within-document referencing --- should it?
> >
> >> 1. Should it?
> >> 1. Maybe.
>
Hello,
Timothy writes:
> Bruce D'Arcus writes:
>
>>> wip-cite-new deals with citing from bibliographies, but I don't think it
>>> deals with within-document referencing --- should it?
>
>> 1. Should it?
>> 1. Maybe.
>
> I feel like it would fit. With everything that's been done for
>
Bruce D'Arcus writes:
>> wip-cite-new deals with citing from bibliographies, but I don't think it
>> deals with within-document referencing --- should it?
> 1. Should it?
> 1. Maybe.
I feel like it would fit. With everything that's been done for
citations, this feels like it may be a rather
Matt Price writes:
> Really, I feel like there should be a parade.
There will be one in the next edition of This Month in Org .
--
Timothy
Matt Price wrote:
> Really, I feel like there should be a parade.
+1
Hi Nicolas,
first: thank you for all the work, especially for thinking of documentation for
end users. My biggest struggle with the current org (and emacs) documentation
is the lack of end-to-end examples. This makes it incredibly difficult to get
things working. It often is like „this is a
On Thu, Jul 08 2021, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:48 PM Timothy wrote:
>
>> wip-cite-new deals with citing from bibliographies, but I don't think it
>> deals with within-document referencing --- should it?
>
> It doesn't now.
>
> I guess to break down the second question
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:48 PM Timothy wrote:
> wip-cite-new deals with citing from bibliographies, but I don't think it
> deals with within-document referencing --- should it?
It doesn't now.
I guess to break down the second question further:
1. Should it?
2. Can it? Could the design be
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> I think the "wip-cite-new" branch is in good shape now. As
> a consequence, I'd like to merge it tomorrow.
This may be much too late to raise this (sorry), but I've got a query.
At the moment org-ref allows for:
+ citing from a bibliography
+ referencing elements
I cannot believe this is finally happening, and I am so stoked and excited
about it. I've been using ~wip-cite-new~ in my classes this week, and these
new tools are absolutely transformative.
Thank you so much for the immense amount of work you put into this. And
also to Bruce for championing
Aloha Nicolas,
Good news! I'm looking forward to using this facility.
Thanks to all the contributors.
All the best,
Tom
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
Hello,
I think the "wip-cite-new" branch is in good shape now. As
a consequence, I'd like to merge it tomorrow.
It is documented, but the
On 8 July 2021, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
Please let me know if there are any objections to the merge.
I do not object---I am eager to try it! I haven't experimented with the work as
it was being done, but I was very impressed with and grateful for all the work
that everyone did on this. I'm
Hello,
I think the "wip-cite-new" branch is in good shape now. As
a consequence, I'd like to merge it tomorrow.
It is documented, but the documentation is scattered across the various
"oc" libraries, and some threads in the mailing list. I'll do a summary
here, from a user point of view.
35 matches
Mail list logo
