Re: [wip-cite-new] Initial implementation of `biblatex' citation processor

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Denis Maier <denismaier@mailbox.org> writes:
> In that case, I'd think that note/bare => footcitecite isn't
> a particular good fit. Footcitetext puts the citation in a footnote,
> just that it doesn't print a footnote mark in a running text.
> (This is useful in cases where the regular footnote mechanism in LaTeX
> doesn't work, e.g. in headings or tables. In these cases you' can
> place the mark manually with \footnotemark, and later you specify the
> text with \footnotetext, or in that case with \footcitetext.)

OK, I'll remove it.

What about also removing \footcite altogether? We could simply
automatically wrap the citation in a inline footnote before exporting
the document. No need for a special command.

Org already handles footnotes in headings and tables, so there may be no
need to footcitetext either…

> Regarding:
>> | locators  | bare      | notecite     |
>> | locators  | caps      | Pnotecite    |
>> | locators  | bare-caps | Notecite     |
>> | locators  |           | pnotecite    |
>
> fnotecite should be added.

Under what style/variant combination?

>> One problem is there is no "\cite", or "\parencite". I though they would
>> make a good fit for the default style, "\cite" being the "bare" variant
>> of "\parencite", and "\autocite" could be moved to a "auto" style. I'm
>> not sure where to put \cite, then.
>
> Why not just add a cite/parens style?

OK.

> \cite could be [cite/bare: ...]

This would be confusing. So far, "bare" is a style variant. Your
suggestion promotes it exceptionally to a full-fledged style. It hurts
my logic. :)

Could "\cite" be [cite/parens/bare:...] instead?

> Regarding \autocite being the default:
> I think one strong argument in favor of this is that people may want
> to switch between different citation export processors. So if you
> typeset your article with latex you may want to use biblatex. But if
> the journal accepts submissions only as docx files you'll have to
> switch to a CSL-based citeproc. Here, the default is to wrap the
> citation either in a footnote or in parentheses, depending on the
> style.
> So, to ensure portability of documents across export systems [cite:
> @doe] should give similar results with different systems, and I think 
> \autocite would be the best choice. (By the way, it's also the way
> pandoc implements this.)

Users can disregard any default style chosen by the processor. If
I write:

  #+cite_export: biblatex whatever text

all [cite:...] objects will create \textcite commands, no matter what
the processor thinks about it.

So, an hypothetical

  #+cite_export: biblatex foo auto

could also turn all [cite:...] into \autocite commands and the document
would be portable.

The default processor style for citations is to be understood as
a fall-back style, not necessarily as "the style associated to
[cite:...]".

Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about autocite being the default.
If it makes sense and we can put \cite elsewhere, let's use that.

Regards,