Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Bastien <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi Aaron,
>
> I now see where you and Eric go and this is good!
>
> Here is a revised suggestion, allowing to add link types from withing
> the #+LINK keyword.
>
> 1. Allow more syntax for #+LINK:
>    
>    #+LINK: bib;%s;%s file:my.bib::%s org-bib-follow-link org-bib-export-link
>
> If `org-bib-follow-link' is nil, it'll follow [[bib:my.bib::key][key]]
> like it does right now, jumping to the "key" line in the my.bib file.
>
> If `org-bib-follow-link' is non-nil, it will operate on
> [[bib:my.bib::key;prenote;postnote][key]] and find the correct key.
>
> If `org-bib-export-link' is non-nil, it will operate on
> [[bib:my.bib::key;prenote;postnote][key]] and export it correctly
> depending on the backend.
>
> The change required for the exporter is to let `org-bib-follow-link'
> and `org-bib-export-link' operate on [[bib::my.bib::key;prenote;postnote]], 
> not on the expanded link.  IOW, link expansion should happen within
> the backend export routines, treating abbreviated links with formatting
> strings (aka "bib;%s;%s") in a special way.
>
> I see two advantages:
>
> - adding new types will be easier -- e.g.:
>   #+LINK: cite file:my.bib::%s org-bib-follow-link org-bib-export-link
>
> - users can decide what syntactic glue they want to their abbreviated
>   links (using ";" or another separator).
>
> Nicolas, do you think it is feasible/good to delay link expansion
> till the backend knows whether the abbreviated link is associated
> to follow/export function that would understand formatting strings
> in the abbreviated form?

I think that if we ever implement a bibliography/citations handlers,
they should be first class objects in Org syntax (like footnotes).
Overloading link syntax would, IMO, be wrong in that case.

Also, link abbrevs and link protocol handlers are meant for the
end-user, not for official syntax.

I suggest to avoid using link syntax for citations altogether, but if we
do, the citation must not depend on an user-defined function. The whole
syntax must be attached to the link.

Therefore, I agree that link syntax needs to be extended. I'm thinking
in particular about per-link export properties. Adding in separator in
the path part is an interesting idea, as long as it isn't a string
widely used in paths.

In a nutshell, my POV is:
 - we should avoid overloading #+LINK syntax and overusing link-abbrevs.
 - citations, if implemented globally, deserve their own syntax.
 - changing the general link type to:

     [[PROTOCOL:PATH/SEP/OPTIONS][DESCRIPTION]]

   is fine.

 
Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou