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

[Denis Maier]

Am 19.05.2021 um 17:23 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
> Denis Maier <denismaier@mailbox.org> writes:
> > 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.)
>
> OK, I'll remove it.
>
> What about also removing \footcite altogether? We could simply
> automatically wrap the citation in a inline footnote before exporting
> the document. No need for a special command.

No, I wouldn't suggest that unless you want to deal with capitalization 
at the beginning of footnotes, which \footcite does automatically.
#+begin_example
        \documentclass{article}
        \begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
        @book{doe,
        author = {Doe, John},
        title = {On using biblatex with orgmode},
        year = {2021},
        }
        \end{filecontents}
        \usepackage[style=authortitle-ibid]{biblatex}
        \addbibresource{\jobname.bib}

        \begin{document}
        Test.\footcite{doe}
        Test.\footcite{doe} % "ibid." -> "Ibid."

        \citereset
        Test.\footnote{\cite{doe}.}
        Test.\footnote{\cite{doe}.} "ibid." stays "ibid."
        \end{document}
#+end_example


> Org already handles footnotes in headings and tables, so there may be no
> need to footcitetext either…
>
> > Regarding:
> > > | locators  | bare      | notecite     |
> > > | locators  | caps      | Pnotecite    |
> > > | locators  | bare-caps | Notecite     |
> > > | locators  |           | pnotecite    |
> >
> > fnotecite should be added.
>
> Under what style/variant combination?

| locators  | bare      | notecite     |
| locators  | caps      | Pnotecite    |
| locators  | bare-caps | Notecite     |
| locators  | foot      | fnotecite    |
| locators  |           | pnotecite    |
> > > 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?
>
> OK.
>
> > \cite could be [cite/bare: ...]
>
> This would be confusing. So far, "bare" is a style variant. Your
> suggestion promotes it exceptionally to a full-fledged style. It hurts
> my logic. :)
>
> Could "\cite" be [cite/parens/bare:...] instead?

Could be, but also [cite/text/bare] or cite/foot/bare or cite/super/bare 
as they all are essentially just wrappers around the plain cite command 
(textcite is a bit different, but parencite and footcite really have the 
same definition as cite, the only difference being that they add some 
kind of wrapper.)
So, starting from parencite and then removing the wrapper would my logic 
instead ;-)
But maybe cite/plain or cite/basic or so?

By the way, I have the impression we can easily get rid of the 
bare-variants completely. If we don't need footcitetext (or if we rename 
the variant to note/text as that would be more appropriate, we can 
something like this:


| 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     |


> Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about autocite being the default.
> If it makes sense and we can put \cite elsewhere, let's use that.

Well, see the revised table above. WDYT?

Denis