|
From: | Gustavo Barros |
Subject: | Re: [Tip] Export a bibliography to HTML with bibLaTeX and make4ht |
Date: | Sun, 24 Jan 2021 19:44:13 -0300 |
User-agent: | mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.1 |
Hi Juan,On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 16:20, Juan Manuel Macías <maciaschain@posteo.net> wrote:
I agree with what you comment here and in your previous message. In fact, I'm afraid this (humble) approach of mine is focused only oncreating a mere list of references in HTML from a bib file, keeping the same bibliography styles that I have customized in bibLaTeX, but not oneverything related to citations throughout the text and on the consistency between citations and bibliographies. I would say that my method is not a good starting point to implement a solution. [...] In my case, anyway, I had been using the TeX ecosystem almost exclusively for my work in typesetting and editorial design (I do not use DTP software, which is not intended to create books but magazinesand newspapers), and Org Mode for writing and notes. But in recent years I have come to realize that a workflow based also on Org and Org-Publishis tremendously productive for me to manage the typesetting of a book,especially a complex book. Let's say now I also use Org as a high-levelinterface for LaTeX. I'm currently working on the /Hispanic Dictionary of Classical Tradition/ (/Diccionario Hispánico de la Tradición Clásica/), a volume of multiple authorship and about 1200 pages. Themethod I raised in this thread has to do with this scenario, where eachdictionary entry is accompanied by a bibliography. As the dictionary will have an online secondary version, I wanted to keep the same bibliography style that I had defined for bibLaTeX. I have not had the problem of the citations here, since the entries do not contain citations (bibliographies only). Otherwise, I think an emergency solution could be to export from Org to *.tex, and then generate theHTML from there using make4ht and another preamble /ad hoc/, better than using a mixed csl/bibLaTeX method which, as you say, can result in manyinconsistencies.
Well, I think your approach should work quite well for your use case, and certainly a number of others. It is just a matter of being aware of the limitations of the tool. That given, it is great. Of course, I was also curious how you had figured things from a more general perspective.
Theessential problem, of course, is that our customization is LaTeXcentric:it resides in LaTeX/bibLaTeX and not in Org. [...]
I think it is more than just being "LaTeXcentric". Depending on requirements, there is really no choice. We don't hear this often, but the fact is that Org does not support citation and bibliography by itself. A lot of things "work", and in many requirements scenarios that seems to be enough, but what does work relies on outsourcing that task to other tools. As far as I know, there are only two ways out of an Org document with citation and bibliography: LaTeX (and its related tools: bibtex, biblatex, biber, etc), and pandoc (which uses CSL to process these features). The first option is extremely featureful, but restricts us to .pdf output. The only sufficiently general option with multi output is then pandoc, which in turn bypasses the whole Org export infrastructure, implying its own trade-offs because of that. Besides, there is no real link between the LaTeX infrastructure and pandoc/CSL, so that if you want to reach "best results in LaTeX, and acceptable results in other formats", you are bound to live with differences in output for citation/references across formats and to remain under the restrictions of the least featureful backend.
Long ago I tended to be more in favor of the idea that a single source-text should produce multiple identical or interchangeable formats. I really still believe it with enthusiasm and I have not completely lost faith in such a utopia ;-)
I'd also would love to see that. ;-)And I do think Org is, by far, the best placed tool to fill this place. But I also think citations and bibliography are a big bottleneck in that regard. Of course, there is a long ongoing effort in that area, in the `wip-cite' branch, and the related `org-citeproc' package. I'm still in the hope this will get merged in future not too distant, as it would change things in that regard. Not in the sense of "magically solving all of these problems", but in providing a convened base upon which people can than invest their time and effort, and try to figure each case out, with time.
Best regards, Gustavo.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |