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

["Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:18 AM Denis Maier <denismaier@mailbox.org> wrote:

> Could be, but also [cite/text/bare] or cite/foot/bare or cite/super/bare
> as they all are essentially just wrappers around the plain cite command
> (textcite is a bit different, but parencite and footcite really have the
> same definition as cite, the only difference being that they add some
> kind of wrapper.)
> So, starting from parencite and then removing the wrapper would my logic
> instead ;-)
> But maybe cite/plain or cite/basic or so?

First, are those two suggestions just synonyms for cite/bare?

Or are you indeed suggesting completely changing the current logic of
these styles and substyles? E.g "bare' substyle becomes rather a
"plain" or "basic" style?

If yes, I need to think on this more.

> |-----------+---------------+--------------|
> | parens    | noauthor-caps | Parencite*   |
> | parens    | noauthor      | parencite*   |
> | parens    | caps          | Parencite    |
> | parens    |               | parencite    |
> |-----------+---------------+--------------|
> | plain     | noauthor-caps | Cite*        |
> | plain     | noauthor      | cite*        |
> | plain     | caps          | Cite         |
> | plain     |               | cite         |
> |-----------+---------------+--------------|

Second, I don't understand some of the above.

Why "noauthor", for example? Is that not handled currently with a "year" style?

cite/year/caps

And how would all of this map to natbib and citeproc?

The style+substyles really should work well across the output formats,
and gracefully fallback if certain variants, particularly in biblatex,
aren't available in other formats.

Is that the case with your suggested changes?

Bruce

PS - I hadn't yet integrated sub-styles in this table, but we probably
need a table that does that.

https://github.com/bdarcus/bibtex-actions/wiki/Org-cite