Hi Rasmus and all,

Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes:

> I would feel more comfortable relying on a JS library.  Perhaps it’s also
> easier to find people who are willing to work on/knows JS over the long
> haul...

Yes, I agree with both you and Aaron here.  JS is easier to distribute
and probably easier to find people to maintain.

>> OTOH, pandoc-citeproc includes a bibtex parser; we’d need to write a JS
>> one and wire it up to citeproc-js.  When I looked (quite some time ago),
>> there did not seem to be any good bibtex parsing libraries in JS (and
>> several third-rate ones).
> Bibtex support is essential, of course.
> Can someone remind me why citeproc-java isn’t good?  AFAIR, it has a
> bibtex parser.  But probably it lacks in some other dimension...

My recollection is that its command-line tool is not all that flexible,
and thus getting it to produce the kind of output we'd need requires
writing and maintaining Java, which no one really wanted to do.  Also, I
think the thought of firing up the JVM to process citations in an Org
document seemed a little...expensive.


Reply via email to