Hello, Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes:
> I wonder if oc-biblatex should support loading biblatex-derived libraries, > e.g. biblatex-chicago? > > There’s a quite a few of these libraries: > > $ tlmgr search --global "biblatex-" | wc -l > 66 > > (This is somewhat overestimating the true number of “biblatex-*” > packages). > > These libraries are typically nie because they are (i) easier to configure > than biblatex for a specific style and (ii) actually support some > \usepackage keywords that can’t be used by biblatex (e.g. ibidtracker for > biblatex-chicago). > > Thus, it might be able to at least support > > #+cite_export: biblatex-$SUBSTYLE > > E.g. #+cite_export: biblatex-chicago. But oc-biblatex would likely also > have to be able to pickup biblatex-* packages in > org-latex-(default-)packages-alist... > > So maybe it’s a can of worms? I don't know enough about BibLaTeX to answer that question. What does it entail to "support loading biblatex-derived libraries" in practical terms? I assume \usepackage{biblatex-chicago} instead of \usepackage{biblatex}, with a different set of options and commands, too. It may be possible to define a new variable, e.g., ‘org-cite-biblatex-package‘, defaulting to ("bilatex" . nil). It would contain entries like (SUBSTYLE . OPTIONS) and would be used to build the proper \usepackage invocation. I also plan to allow custom commands in "oc-biblatex.el", so it could also handle commands introduced by the substyles. How we would select substyle from the document is not clear, tho. Another possibility it to write, e.g., "oc-biblatex-chicago.el" and define a new ‘biblatex-chicago’ export processor, re-using most functions from "oc-biblatex.el". It would probably only be necessary to re-define ‘org-cite-biblatex-export-citation’ and ‘org-cite-biblatex-prepare-preamble’. WDYT? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou