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

[Denis Maier]

Am 19.05.2021 um 15:44 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
> Here is the summary:
>
> | Style     | Variant   | Command      |
> |-----------+-----------+--------------|
> | author    | caps      | Citeauthor*  |
> | author    | full      | citeauthor   |
> | author    | caps-full | Citeauthor   |
> | author    |           | citeauthor   |
> |-----------+-----------+--------------|
> | locators  | bare      | notecite     |
> | locators  | caps      | Pnotecite    |
> | locators  | bare-caps | Notecite     |
> | locators  |           | pnotecite    |
> |-----------+-----------+--------------|
> | nocite    |           | nocite       |
> |-----------+-----------+--------------|
> | note      | bare      | footcitetext |
> | note      |           | footcite     |
> |-----------+-----------+--------------|
> | smart     | caps      | Smartcite    |
> | smart     |           | smartcite    |
> |-----------+-----------+--------------|
> | super     |           | supercite    |
> |-----------+-----------+--------------|
> | text      | caps      | Textcite     |
> | text      |           | textcite     |
> |-----------+-----------+--------------|
> | title     | full      | citetitle*   |
> | title     |           | citetitle    |
> |-----------+-----------+--------------|
> | year      | full      | citeyear*    |
> | year      |           | citeyear     |
> |-----------+-----------+--------------|
> | (default) | caps      | Autocite     |
> | (default) |           | autocite     |
>
> "bare" variant means "without parenthesis", I think.

Am 19.05.2021 um 15:50 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
> To be more precise/general, it means without enclosing punctuation;
> parentheses, brackets, etc.


Thanks, both. So bare is just the citation without a wrapper.

In that case, I'd think that note/bare => footcitecite isn't a 
particular good fit. Footcitetext puts the citation in a footnote, just 
that it doesn't print a footnote mark in a running text.
(This is useful in cases where the regular footnote mechanism in LaTeX 
doesn't work, e.g. in headings or tables. In these cases you' can place 
the mark manually with \footnotemark, and later you specify the text 
with \footnotetext, or in that case with \footcitetext.)

Regarding:
> | locators  | bare      | notecite     |
> | locators  | caps      | Pnotecite    |
> | locators  | bare-caps | Notecite     |
> | locators  |           | pnotecite    |

fnotecite should be added.

> One problem is there is no "\cite", or "\parencite". I though they would
> make a good fit for the default style, "\cite" being the "bare" variant
> of "\parencite", and "\autocite" could be moved to a "auto" style. I'm
> not sure where to put \cite, then.

Why not just add a cite/parens style?
\cite could be [cite/bare: ...]

Regarding \autocite being the default:
I think one strong argument in favor of this is that people may want to 
switch between different citation export processors. So if you typeset 
your article with latex you may want to use biblatex. But if the journal 
accepts submissions only as docx files you'll have to switch to a 
CSL-based citeproc. Here, the default is to wrap the citation either in 
a footnote or in parentheses, depending on the style.
So, to ensure portability of documents across export systems [cite: 
@doe] should give similar results with different systems, and I think 
\autocite would be the best choice. (By the way, it's also the way 
pandoc implements this.)

Denis