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

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:31 AM Denis Maier <denismaier@mailbox.org> wrote:

> 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.

And, just as a general rule, not all sub-styles are relevant for all styles.

> > 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?

Probably makes sense.

> \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.

Yes, this is the use case I was thinking of when suggesting a lot of this.

In fact, it's an approach I'm likely to use myself!

> 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.)

Bruce