Re: citations: org-cite vs org-ref 3.0

[Dominik Schrempf]

I think `fullcite' is OK, although it will be a bit verbose:

┌────
│ [cite/fullcite:...]
└────


Personally, I don’t mind using `full', and so having a duplicate between a style
and a variant.

But, to be honest, anything is fine with me, as long as it is readily available
and documented.

Thank you!
Dominik

“Bruce D’Arcus” <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> “Bruce D’Arcus” <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 5:27 PM Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> I can add it, but “full” is already the name of a variant, so
>> >> [cite/full: …] and [cite/style/full: …] would mean different things.
>> >> Is this a problem, or do you think of a better style name?
>> >
>> > FWIW, Nicolas, biblatex “fullcite” is equivalent to natbib/bibtex 
>> > “bibentry”.
>> >
>> > That might be a reasonable alternative style name?
>> >
>> >> Also, are there possible variants for this style?
>> >
>> > AFAIK, no.
>>
>> Hmm, OK. What about:
>>
>>   (“fullcite” nil “fullcite” nil nil)
>>
>> ?
>
> Seems fine by me, so long as you use the same name for natbib if and
> when you add bibentry support?
>
> Bruce