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

[Max Nikulin]

On 21/03/2022 18:51, John Kitchin wrote:
> citenum and bibentry are the only two I am not sure have a CSL analog.

I read your messages once more and I should say that I feel some 
disagreement of this one (I removed most of it) and the earlier and 
longer one from Sun, 20 Mar 2022 20:31:29 -0400 
m2sfrc149c.fsf@andrew.cmu.edu">https://list.orgmode.org/m2sfrc149c.fsf@andrew.cmu.edu

I admit that org-ref is carefully tuned to your workflow. I hope, it is 
possible to left aside decomposition of org-cite into modules for some time.

Let's assume org-cite with natbib backend for citations and org-ref for 
cross-references. It seems, a couple of missed styles currently is not a 
problem due to the defcustom for the mapping.

Are there still any technical limitations that prevent getting in the 
exported LaTeX file the same citation commands as for org-ref?

In particular I am worrying concerning 
https://github.com/jkitchin/org-ref README (and the same phrase from the 
earlier message):

> org-cite does not meet my citation and technical document publishing 
> needs, and it was not possible to integrate it into org-ref without 
> compromising those.
Does it refer to exported result or to convenience of working with 
citations? Would it help if it were possible to choose style by its 
natbib command?

I see that you do not like org-cite styles, but I can not figure out 
what are the real blockers that prevent producing documents having the 
same quality.