emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Nicolas Goaziou
Subject: Re: [wip-cite-new] Initial implementation of `biblatex' citation processor
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 15:13:38 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)

Hello,

"Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:45 AM Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 
> wrote:
>
>> I didn't test it much so it probably contains silly bugs. Sorry about
>> that.
>
> OK, a simple bug report.
>
> cite/bare -> \cite (currently is autocite)
> cite/bare-caps -> \Cite (currently is autocite)
>
> Also, not sure about the "full" sub-styles. Do those have an
> equivalent in biblatex?

This is not a bug report, but a suggestion for additional bindings,
isn't it?

In any case, it sounds fine to me, but Denis Maier made a similar
suggestion with the following table:

| Style     | Variant       | Command      |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| author    | caps          | Citeauthor*  |
| author    | full          | citeauthor   |
| author    | caps-full     | Citeauthor   |
| author    |               | citeauthor   |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| title     | full          | citetitle*   |
| title     |               | citetitle    |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| year      | full          | citeyear*    |
| year      |               | citeyear     |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| locators  | parens        | pnotecite    |
| locators  | parens-caps   | Pnotecite    |
| locators  | foot          | fnotecite    |
| locators  | caps          | Notecite     |
| locators  |               | notecite     |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| nocite    |               | nocite       |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| note      | text          | footcitetext |
| note      |               | footcite     |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| smart     | caps          | Smartcite    |
| smart     |               | smartcite    |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| super     |               | supercite    |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| foot      |               | footcite     |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| text      | caps          | Textcite     |
| text      |               | textcite     |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| parens    | noauthor-caps | Parencite*   |
| parens    | noauthor      | parencite*   |
| parens    | caps          | Parencite    |
| parens    |               | parencite    |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| plain     | noauthor-caps | Cite*        |
| plain     | noauthor      | cite*        |
| plain     | caps          | Cite         |
| plain     |               | cite         |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| (default) | caps          | Autocite     |
| (default) |               | autocite     |

So maybe we should try to converge first. Then, I'll happily implement
the result!

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]