Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> Denis Maier and I worked on this off-list.
Thank you for this work!
> Below is our suggested revised biblatex and natbib mapping table, with
> the (long) explanation below it, the "extended" table for illustration
> below that, and the org file with the tables
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 9:25 AM Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 9:13 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> > So maybe we should try to converge first. Then, I'll happily implement
> > the result!
>
> Will do; thanks!
Denis Maier and I worked on this off-list.
Below is our suggested
Hello,
Denis Maier writes:
> Is there a way to use styles that aren't loaded via biblatex package
> options, but as distinct package. E.g., biblatex-chicago is loaded as
> \usepackage{biblatex-chicago}. Internally, the package will then load
> biblatex on its own.
You can add a package with,
Hello,
Denis Maier writes:
> Just one thing I was asking myself: Will/should users be able to
> customize that?
I considered it too, when I was writing oc-biblatex. For example, custom
commands could be a list of entries like
(STYLE BASE-NAME MULTICITE? NO-OPTIONAL?)
E.g.,
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 9:13 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> > Also, not sure about the "full" sub-styles. Do those have an
> > equivalent in biblatex?
>
> This is not a bug report, but a suggestion for additional bindings,
> isn't it?
Yes; sorry :-)
> In any case, it sounds fine to me, but Denis
Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:45 AM Nicolas Goaziou
> wrote:
>
>> I didn't test it much so it probably contains silly bugs. Sorry about
>> that.
>
> OK, a simple bug report.
>
> cite/bare -> \cite (currently is autocite)
> cite/bare-caps -> \Cite (currently is
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:45 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> I didn't test it much so it probably contains silly bugs. Sorry about
> that.
OK, a simple bug report.
cite/bare -> \cite (currently is autocite)
cite/bare-caps -> \Cite (currently is autocite)
Also, not sure about the "full"
Bummer!
This non-minimal example (modified from a document that originally
called biblatex-chicago directly) works for me:
\usepackage[style=chicago-authordate, giveninits=true,
uniquename=mininit, noibid, sortcites=true, backend=biber,
bibencoding=utf8]{biblatex}
All the best,
Tom
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:37 PM Thomas S. Dye wrote:
>
> Interested lurker here. From the biblatex-chicago manual:
>
> "You can load the package via the usual \usepackage{biblatex},
> adding either style=chicago-notes or style=chicago-authordate"
Alas, I get errors when I use that invocation.
Interested lurker here. From the biblatex-chicago manual:
"You can load the package via the usual \usepackage{biblatex},
adding either style=chicago-notes or style=chicago-authordate"
All the best,
Tom
Denis Maier writes:
Hi,
Am 20.05.2021 um 19:06 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
Hello,
Am 20.05.2021 um 19:15 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
Hello,
Denis Maier writes:
By the way, I have the impression we can easily get rid of the
bare-variants completely. If we don't need footcitetext (or if we rename
the variant to note/text as that would be more appropriate, we can
something like
Hi,
Am 20.05.2021 um 19:06 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:57 AM Denis Maier wrote:
I'm not really sure we need bare substyles at all. At least in biblatex
it's the basis for the other commands.
Though see my followup message on
Hello,
Denis Maier writes:
> By the way, I have the impression we can easily get rid of the
> bare-variants completely. If we don't need footcitetext (or if we rename
> the variant to note/text as that would be more appropriate, we can
> something like this:
>
>
> | Style | Variant
Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:57 AM Denis Maier wrote:
>
>> >> I'm not really sure we need bare substyles at all. At least in biblatex
>> >> it's the basis for the other commands.
>> >
>> > Though see my followup message on autocite config.
>> >
>> > Does that
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:29 AM Denis Maier wrote:
>
> Am 20.05.2021 um 16:11 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
...
> > 1. I wasn't sure Nicolas was aware of this config option, nor how one
> > would configure it currently (but it seems necessary in general)
>
> No, it's only necessary to configure this if
Am 19.05.2021 um 17:23 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
\cite could be [cite/bare: ...]
This would be confusing. So far, "bare" is a style variant. Your
suggestion promotes it exceptionally to a full-fledged style. It hurts
my logic. :)
Could "\cite" be [cite/parens/bare:...] instead?
Another
Am 20.05.2021 um 16:11 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:57 AM Denis Maier wrote:
I'm not really sure we need bare substyles at all. At least in biblatex
it's the basis for the other commands.
Though see my followup message on autocite config.
Does that change this
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:57 AM Denis Maier wrote:
> >> I'm not really sure we need bare substyles at all. At least in biblatex
> >> it's the basis for the other commands.
> >
> > Though see my followup message on autocite config.
> >
> > Does that change this discussion?
>
> Why?
I put it in
Am 20.05.2021 um 15:22 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:07 AM Denis Maier wrote:
Am 20.05.2021 um 12:36 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:18 AM Denis Maier wrote:
But maybe cite/plain or cite/basic or so?
First, are those two suggestions just synonyms for
Am 20.05.2021 um 13:56 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
So backing up a bit, as I was getting confused, here's [1] one summary
of the different core biblatex commands.
- \cite [autocite=plain]: Citations are typeset as-is;
- \parencite [autocite=inline]: Citations are typeset in parentheses;
- \footcite
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:07 AM Denis Maier wrote:
>
> Am 20.05.2021 um 12:36 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:18 AM Denis Maier wrote:
> >> But maybe cite/plain or cite/basic or so?
> >
> > First, are those two suggestions just synonyms for cite/bare?
>
> Yes. Nicolas
Am 20.05.2021 um 12:36 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:18 AM Denis Maier
wrote:
>
>> Could be, but also [cite/text/bare] or cite/foot/bare or cite/super/bare
>> as they all are essentially just wrappers around the plain cite command
>> (textcite is a bit different, but
Am 20.05.2021 um 12:36 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:18 AM Denis Maier wrote:
Could be, but also [cite/text/bare] or cite/foot/bare or cite/super/bare
as they all are essentially just wrappers around the plain cite command
(textcite is a bit different, but parencite and
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 7:56 AM Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> I take that summary to mean this basic question can be handled by a
> combination of autocite and export config; autocite=inline (or
> autocite=footnote) as default export, but of course configurable?
An example of using the autocite
So backing up a bit, as I was getting confused, here's [1] one summary
of the different core biblatex commands.
- \cite [autocite=plain]: Citations are typeset as-is;
- \parencite [autocite=inline]: Citations are typeset in parentheses;
- \footcite [autocite=footnote]: Citations are typeset as
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:22 AM Rudolf Adamkovič wrote:
> I could test this. I write multiple posts in APA style every week, all
> with citations, and I cannot wait to use Org instead of LaTeX for all my
> work. Is it possible to test this with use-package somehow? Note, I am
> still fairly new
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:18 AM Denis Maier wrote:
> Could be, but also [cite/text/bare] or cite/foot/bare or cite/super/bare
> as they all are essentially just wrappers around the plain cite command
> (textcite is a bit different, but parencite and footcite really have the
> same definition as
Am 19.05.2021 um 17:23 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
Denis Maier writes:
In that case, I'd think that note/bare => footcitecite isn't
a particular good fit. Footcitetext puts the citation in a footnote,
just that it doesn't print a footnote mark in a running text.
(This is useful in cases where the
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> On Tue, May 18, 2021, 11:45 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
> I don't use biblatex either; hopefully some folks that do can test
> this.
I could test this. I write multiple posts in APA style every week, all
with citations, and I cannot wait to use Org instead of LaTeX
Denis Maier writes:
> In that case, I'd think that note/bare => footcitecite isn't
> a particular good fit. Footcitetext puts the citation in a footnote,
> just that it doesn't print a footnote mark in a running text.
> (This is useful in cases where the regular footnote mechanism in LaTeX
>
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:31 AM Denis Maier wrote:
> In that case, I'd think that note/bare => footcitecite isn't a
> particular good fit. Footcitetext puts the citation in a footnote, just
> that it doesn't print a footnote mark in a running text.
And, just as a general rule, not all
Am 19.05.2021 um 15:44 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
Here is the summary:
| Style | Variant | Command |
|---+---+--|
| author| caps | Citeauthor* |
| author| full | citeauthor |
| author| caps-full | Citeauthor |
| author|
Hello,
Denis Maier writes:
> \cite is the most basic cite command:
>
> In a author-year style:
> \cite => Doe 2020
> \textcite => Doe (2020)
> \parencite=> (Doe 2020)
> \autocite => \parencite
>
> In note-based styles (e.g verbose):
>
> \cite =>
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:45 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> "bare" variant means "without parenthesis", I think.
To be more precise/general, it means without enclosing punctuation;
parentheses, brackets, etc.
Bruce
Hi,
Am 18.05.2021 um 17:13 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
Hello,
In a rebased "wip-cite-new" branch, I made an modest attempt to write
a `biblatex' citation processor, in the file "oc-biblatex.el"
Just in case anyone else stumbles over this:
You'll have the add
(require 'oc-biblatex)
to the
Am 19.05.2021 um 12:43 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:05 AM Denis Maier wrote:
Is there a way to get a simple \cite?
Hmm ... "cite/cite"?
What does "cite" do that "autocite" doesn't?
\cite is the most basic cite command:
In a author-year style:
\cite => Doe
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:05 AM Denis Maier wrote:
> Is there a way to get a simple \cite?
Hmm ... "cite/cite"?
What does "cite" do that "autocite" doesn't?
> Also, footcite should be there.
Footcite is already there under the "note"/"fn" style.
Bruce
Am 18.05.2021 um 17:13 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
Hello,
In a rebased "wip-cite-new" branch, I made an modest attempt to write
a `biblatex' citation processor, in the file "oc-biblatex.el
As Bruces has already written, this doesn't look modest at all.
[...]
- author(a), including caps(c),
On Tue, May 18, 2021, 11:45 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> In a rebased "wip-cite-new" branch, I made an modest attempt to write
> a `biblatex' citation processor ...
Looks a bit more than "modest"!
I don't use biblatex either; hopefully some folks that do can test this.
I'm not sure on
39 matches
Mail list logo
