On Monday, 19 Jul 2021 at 14:52, Thomas S. Dye wrote:
> I used to have a global bibliography that my employees all used. Every
> project also had a local bibliography for citations that didn't appear
> in the global bibliography. At the end of a project, after the editor
> had cleaned up the
As Emmenuel pointed out, we missed that Nicolas already thought of
this, and you can do this:
#+org-cite-global-bibliography: nil
With that, there's no problem, and lots of flexibility.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 8:53 PM Thomas S. Dye wrote:
>
> I used to have a global bibliography that my
I used to have a global bibliography that my employees all used.
Every project also had a local bibliography for citations that
didn't appear in the global bibliography. At the end of a
project, after the editor had cleaned up the local bibliography,
I'd merge it with the global bibliography
> It seems like that should not be the case, i.e. if you define BIBLIOGRAPHY
> keywords it means you do not want to use the ones
> in org-cite-global-bibliography. Is there a scenario where the union of those
> makes sense?
I second this. The local bibliographies should supercede the global.
Le lundi 19 juillet 2021 à 13:54 -0400, John Kitchin a écrit :
> That doesn't seem consistent with other ways that file-local keywords
> are used though, and it would lead (for me anyway) to citing
> unintended
> references (and including unintended bib files in the export) if
> there is
> only
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:54 PM John Kitchin wrote:
> Maybe a reasonable compromise is something like
>
> #+bibliography: :local t
>
> which could indicate not to use the global variable.
I like it!
Bruce
That doesn't seem consistent with other ways that file-local keywords
are used though, and it would lead (for me anyway) to citing unintended
references (and including unintended bib files in the export) if there is
only one bibliography file that should be used for a document.
Maybe a reasonable
Yes, you're right Emmanuel.
I guess this goes back to my file type/extension issue then.
I do expect this to be a non-issue in time though, as related packages
update to fully support all three common input formats.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:29 PM CHARPENTIER Emmanuel
wrote:
>
> > It seems
I was wondering about this the other day too, and am not sure.
It can actually be a problem, and has been for me, if you're mixing
export processors; like biblatex, and CSL (which is best to use with
json currently).
So I definitely see a downside currently, and can't think of a problem
in
