Re: [wip-cite-new] Initial implementation of `csl' citation processor

[Nicolas Goaziou]

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

> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:54 PM Timothy <tecosaur@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>>
>> > I wouldn't hold my breath.
>> >
>> > First, IIUC, there's no reason to force biblatex over natbib OOTB as
>> > both are widely in use. But, more importantly, "oc-csl" require the
>> > external Citeproc library, so it cannot be loaded by default. As
>> > a consequence, no default configuration can use it.
>>
>> If you don't mind some follow-up questions.
>> + I take it that natbib is used by default for LaTeX then? Is it fairly
>>   easy for the user to switch to biblatex?
>> + With citeproc, I don't suppose something could be put behind a
>>   (featurep) switch to use oc-csl if citeproc is available, and fall
>>   back gracefully otherwise?
>
> Not sure about generally (Nicolas can comment on that), but in this
> case, if you specify this:
>
> #+cite_export: natbib
>
> ... the export process runs through that processor, even if you are
> outputting to plain text or HTML, where natbib is not supported.

Exactly.

By default, no export processor is selected. All citations are removed
from output, and print_bibliography keywords, ignored.

You have to actively select what processor you want for the document,
globally, through a variable, or with a cite_export keyword. Therefore,
the processor does not depend on the back-end used; you are supposed to
choose the one you think to be appropriate. There is no falling back
either. You get what you asked for. That's the way.

It could be possible to change `org-cite-export-processor' so it becomes
an alist where you can associate back-ends to processors. But I can't
see how to transpose it nicely to cite_export keyword. 

I'm not convinced this would be an improvement either. For example, you
may want to use two different processors with the same back-end.