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

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:07 AM Denis Maier <denismaier@mailbox.org> wrote:
>
> Am 20.05.2021 um 12:36 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:18 AM Denis Maier <denismaier@mailbox.org> wrote:

> >> But maybe cite/plain or cite/basic or so?
> >
> > First, are those two suggestions just synonyms for cite/bare?
>
> Yes. Nicolas complained about cite/bare so I've thought cite/plain may
> be nicer. (See autocite=plain) But the biblatex manual uses itself the
> term "bare".

OK.

I don't care; I suggested "bare" because the earlier "alt" was super vague.

> > Or are you indeed suggesting completely changing the current logic of
> > these styles and substyles? E.g "bare' substyle becomes rather a
> > "plain" or "basic" style?
>
> I'm not really sure we need bare substyles at all. At least in biblatex
> it's the basis for the other commands.

Though see my followup message on autocite config.

Does that change this discussion?

...

> > If yes, I need to think on this more.
> >
> >> |-----------+---------------+--------------|
> >> | parens    | noauthor-caps | Parencite*   |
> >> | parens    | noauthor      | parencite*   |
> >> | parens    | caps          | Parencite    |
> >> | parens    |               | parencite    |
> >> |-----------+---------------+--------------|
> >> | plain     | noauthor-caps | Cite*        |
> >> | plain     | noauthor      | cite*        |
> >> | plain     | caps          | Cite         |
> >> | plain     |               | cite         |
> >> |-----------+---------------+--------------|
> >
> > Second, I don't understand some of the above.
> >
> > Why "noauthor", for example? Is that not handled currently with a "year" 
> > style?
> >
> > cite/year/caps
>
> First of all, what does capitalization of a number mean? There's no
> \Citeyear in biblatex, after all.

Right; I should not have used that example :-)

> But that aside, \citeauthor, \citetitle and \citeyear are lower level
> commands than \cite*{}.
> \cite* will work in author-date styles and in author-title styles. It
> will either print the date or the title. When using \citeyear directly
> you cannot easily switch to a different style. And: citeyear etc. don't
> use the internal trackers (ibid., idem., etc.).
>
> #+begin_example
> At the beginning Doe argues this and that (2020, p. 20). He goes on to
> say blabla, see ibid., p. 23.
> #+end_example
>
> In order to get the ibid., you'll need a \cite* instead of just a
> \citeyear or so.

Shouldn't that example be covered in org-cite by, respectively ...

cite/year
cite/bare (or plain)

...?

> > And how would all of this map to natbib and citeproc? >
> > The style+substyles really should work well across the output formats,
> > and gracefully fallback if certain variants, particularly in biblatex,
> > aren't available in other formats.
> >
> > Is that the case with your suggested changes?
>
> The problem is indeed portability between csl and biblatex (and natbib).
> I think it's unavoidable that users who use biblatex specific commands
> loose that to a certain degree. Fallback mappings should be added, of
> course, but they will only get you so far. We should probably indicate
> which commands work in all packages so users can make their decisions
> consciously.

Yes, it seems highly likely that some of biblatex just won't fully
work in other formats.

But ideally we'd limit that.

Bruce