Hi Rasmus, hi the list,

Reading this thread I've understood that the question of html export of
biblatex citations is still an open problem for org-mode developers, right

Thanks to the online manual and the help of the list, I have succeeded to
write a template of koma-article class which is correctly exported both in
latex and in html. But I meet the problem of exporting  into html footnotes
and references.

At the moment, what is the best i.e. the more convenient solution?

My best wishes for this new year,


2013/5/21 Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us>

> Hi,
> Now that 8.0 has shipped let's talk bibliography support.  This
> follows directly upon the discussion around March[1].
> The essence of the thread was that some people agreed that it would be
> nice to have support for citation commands build into Org (I'll
> summarize in the next post).  But let me first restate my own take on
> the issue.  IMO a nice format would be:
> I think we should allow for a more general approach than one just for
> citation and this is a good thing (IMO).
> The in-buffer display of (*) could be governed by
> org-buffer-format-KEYWORD (similar to
> gnus-user-format-function-LETTER) or just identity if no function is
> defined.  Export could be handled by org-BACKEND-KEYWORD or
> org-export-KEYWORD.  With officially recognized KEYWORDs something
> like citation could be a 'first-class citizen'.  PROPERTIES could be a
> string like:
>   optional-keyless-entry :prop1 one :prop2 two ...
> Perhaps, treatment of keyword, could even be handled by an
> in-buffer Org Babel function in the spirit of e.g. reproducible
> research (see below).
> This would be different from Org links in that (*) is more like a
> functions that allows for (i) pretty and informative display in
> buffer/export and (ii) easy user extension.
> I think there are many compelling use-cases for such a framework.
> 1. Citation: Take the keyword citetext which should be an 'official'
>    KEYWORD.  So for instance we could have
>      [citetext BIBTEX-KEY :prenote note, w/comma :postnote blah].
>    In buffers, via org-in-buffer-format-citetext, it would be
>    displayed as
>      BIBTEX-KEY (note, w/comma, YEAR, blah)
>    or something similar (depending to what extend bibtex.el would be
>    leveraged; e.g. BIBTEX-KEY might show the author/editor key and
>    YEAR would also depend on parsing a bibtex file) (obviouesly,
>    there's some reference to a bibtex file somewhere).  In LaTeX it
>    would be exported as
>      \citetext[note,w/comma][blah]{BIBTEX-KEY}
>    In html it might utilize some tool that understand bibtex (there's
>    a link to such a tool in the next post).  In ASCII it could almost
>    use what would be displayed in the buffer.
> 2. MY-FUN: MY-FUN is some function that does something with some
>    properties, perhaps just a string (simple cases: [sc text] is used
>    for small caps, or mayhaps [my-treat-dna-string DNA-STRING]).  I
>    might use it in a single file that I want to send to people or I
>    might just use it in my notes.  Currently it's implemented via
>    org-emphasis-alist or as a link.  Changing emphases is a hacks, and
>    they are hard to export with the now more robust Org syntax and
>    further permit little control over how they are displayed
>    in-buffer.  Links are more flexible but lacks display control and
>    becomes somewhat painful with many arguments[2].  Also, MY-FUN
>    doesn't take a 'description'.  With (*) I could simply write
>    Perhaps, I could even define org-BACKEND-MY-FUN in a babel block
>    if it's only relevant to the current file.
> There's been some work and some discussion on this already, most
> notably Aaron already supplied some patches towards this end[3],
> but using a slightly different syntax more like the link syntax;
> e.g. textcite above would look like
>   [[textcite:bibtex-key&&pre%3Dfoo&&post%3Dbar][whatever]]
> where whatever is ignored.  The state of the discussion is to some
> extend summarized in the next post.
> It would love to hear whether other people find something like this to
> be a good idea?  Would anyone find a use such a framework?  Would (*)
> conflict with anyone's current usage of Org?  Is (*) too ambitious and
> in terms of getting citation support?  Is this is taking a musket to
> kill a butterfly?  What are the the flaws in the above.
> I'm not a good (lisp) programmer, but I think I have a month off this
> summer where I could work on something like the above.
> Thanks for reading,
> Rasmus
> Footnotes:
> [1] http://mid.gmane.org/20130303070635.GA12112%40panahar
> [2] my citation links often look like postnote;prenote without
> showing the BIBTEX-KEY or citation format.
> [2] here http://mid.gmane.org/87lia0s7wi.fsf%40bzg.ath.cx
> and here http://mid.gmane.org/87wqthk7vj.fsf%40gmail.com.
> --
> When in doubt, do it!

Reply via email to