Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[Jorge A. Alfaro-Murillo]

0.

John Kitchin writes:

> Citations in org are /far/ more than just references in the text 
> for me. They are functional links, gateways to a lot of 
> information connected to the citation. My org-files are much 
> more useful than the PDF manuscripts that get exported. 

I completely agree.

> I also would like to see if it is workable. 

Same here.

> There is nothing to lose in trying. org-ref will always be an 
> alternative option, and if the new syntax is extendable enough 
> it might even replace the citation links.

The big advantage of org-ref is that it builds on BibTeX. From 
what I read in this and the previous thread, the new proposal 
tries more or less to reimplement BibTeX in org. (If it is not so, 
I apologize, because I confess that I haven't read every single 
email in these two veery long threads. If you plan to use BibTeX 
as a base, disregard the rest of the email).

BibTeX is IMHO one of the best pieces of software ever created. It 
had a stable version from 1988 to 2010, in 2010 it was last 
updated, because we started to cite with long URLs (not the norm 
in 1988). It is something that just works as it is supposed to and 
has all you need for creating bibliographies.

The biggest advantage of having something org/elisp native as in 
the proposal would be the implementation of functions to create 
bibliographies with a specific style, what Oren Patashnik called 
"Bibliography-style hacking", which is very cumbersome in BibTeX 
(maybe is just that I cannot read WEB/Pascal and have a strong 
preference for Lisp dialects).

Just let me drop the mandatory reading:

http://www.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/bibliography/bibtex/base/btxdoc.pdf
http://www.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/bibliography/bibtex/base/btxhak.pdf

and references therein.

Best,

--
Jorge.