Ihor Radchenko <[email protected]> writes: > Christian Moe <[email protected]> writes: > >> Having spent a little more time with the basic processor, I think the >> manual should also explicitly include the disclaimer from >> oc-basic.el: [...] > > Not sure here. Yes, it is a proof of concept, but it is also the only > built-in processor that works with all export backends.
(Sorry for bringing it up in this thread, it's out of scope for this patch and I'm not pressing for it here. Still, replies follow.) True. It also works with all bibliography-file formats and demonstrates all the org-cite capabilities. It just doesn't really work in terms of producing citations and bibliographies of acceptable quality. (And rightly so, because making oc-basic any more than a proof of concept would have entailed endless feature requests for wheels already invented by the makers of CSL and BibLaTex, which org-cite supports anyway.) > So, by putting a disclaimer, we are leaving users with no good > alternatives. I disagree; CSL is an excellent alternative, and the manual should point users to it. Admittedly it doesn't work out of the box, but it does as soon as one has taken a minute to install citeproc. CSL also works for all export backends and for different bibliography file formats, and unlike oc-basic it works for any style once you've taken a few minutes to download the style files and point a variable to them. > Also not nice, IMHO. Fair point (the developers were blunt). But I'll think about a more constructive wording and perhaps propose a patch. >>>> +- =author= (=a=) :: As default, but suppress the year. Variants: >>>> + =bare=, =caps=, =full=, and all their combinations. >>>> ... >>> >>> Compared to the earlier list with examples, this reads much less >>> clearly. >> >> I'm not sure what you're comparing with here. [...] > > I was referring to > [...] > After reading that, the new list you added felt less clear because of > missing examples. Ah, thanks, now I see what you meant. Point taken. > I left duplicates deliberately in the first list and only in the first > list. Mostly to illustrate // syntax. Maybe we can have a different > example for bare-caps though. That makes sense. Let me get back in a day or two with a possibly final version of the patch including the the note (ft) AND the numeric (nb) style, which I also overlooked, and perhaps a few rearrangements of the examples. Yours, Christian
