Hi Eric and Christian, Christian Moe <m...@christianmoe.com> writes:
> The *conclusion* (where Eric Schulte's new bibtex functions should go) > is not a big concern to me, but FWIW, the *premise* strikes me as > unnecessarily restrictive. > > I submit that, for any non-Org format or application "foo", the module > org-foo.el does not have to be restricted to providing an Org link > type for foo. It seems a sensible namespace for e.g. foo-Org/Org-foo > conversion functions as well. The fact that several modules so named > *at present* only provide link functionality does not, I think, amount > to a convention that this is all they should do. Christian, you are right. I stand corrected. I agree that the namespace can accommodate import/export/conversion features in addition to hyperlinking. Apologies (especially to Eric) for my wavering on where to put this. This functionality is indeed not a generic bib backend, but rather tightly integrated with bibtex-mode and the bibtex format. So a full +1 for adding this to org-bibtex.el. And that's my final answer... :) >> By packaging the new functionality separately perhaps we could lay the >> groundwork for internal, backend agnostic bibliographical export and >> formatting---not unlike the way in which org-contacts.el replaces bbdb. > > That's a great aim. Still, a future bibliography module (be it > "org-bib", "org-cite" or whatever) could just as well rely, for bits > of bibtex functionality, on some utilities packaged in org-bibtex. Agreed. Best, Matt
