Hi Nicolas, I'll take a close look at this and test it over the coming days, but in the meantime, on two more general points:
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 4:39 PM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: First, names: > I called it `csl' instead of `citeproc'. It is a bit ambiguous, but it > is shorter, and "org-cite-csl" prefix sounds less redudant than > "org-cite-citeproc...". But I know this is a weak argument, so if you think > "citeproc" > is still more appropriate, I can revisit this. >From my perspective, that's totally fine, and arguably better: csl export processor for citeproc library. The citeproc name is just a convention for the processors that's developed over time I think mostly because people couldn't be bothered to come up with better names. I actually wrote the very first one, in XSLT, called citeproc-xsl. I think CSL would be more widely known among users though. And this processor doesn't actually do the formatting, so it makes sense. Second, this: > Also, I don't expect a different CSL-based citation processor any time soon, > so it should be fine. Well, I'll ask you the same question I asked Andras recently: What if a developer has the idea to hook up one of the new, very fast, csl libraries: either the haskell version associated with pandoc, or the rust-based version associated with Zotero? Possible reasons they might want to do that: performance and/or compliance/features. Could you make sure this module is coded in such a way that it should be relatively straightforward to do that? Bruce
