> I'm just a little confused here, particularly on the last item. Why > would one set a style per bib file?
No idea. The need exists though: <https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/10104/two-bibliographies-with-two-different-styles-in-the-same-document> This is a natural following step. Does Org need to standardize styles? Or is it up to each citation back-end to handle this? My naive thinking was to allow something like: #+bibliography: "something.bib" :style author-year but maybe the "style" part is too citation back-end dependant, and should not be standardized. I would be nice, however, to standardize two keywords: one to define a bibliography, and another one to insert it in a document, upon export. Suggestions welcome! > On the "could be ignored" part, you are referring to the optional type > character, so that citey: becomes cite:; correct? Yes, basically, the parser returns, e.g., '(:style "y"). It is up to the citation back-end to interpret, or not, that :style attribute. If it ignores it, the citation effectively becomes equivalent to '(:style nil), i.e., "cite:". Is that clearer? > Finally, what does the above example look like when, say, there are > two cites (say @doe2020 and @doe2019), and a global prefix? > > Is it this? > > [cite:see ;@doe2020;@doe2019] Yes, and a "t-styled" citation would be: [citet:see;@doe2020;@doe2019] Barring the prefix, the syntax of the citation does not change wrt to "wip-cite" branch. However, this is enough to be slightly incompatible, hence the "wip". > And a SuppressAuthor variant would be this? > > [cite:see ;-@doe2020;-@doe2019] Indeed. How does that sound?