Re: [O] Citations, continued

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Rasmus <address@hidden> 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 address@hidden 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,