From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/5538
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Taco Hoekwater <taco@elvenkind.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context
Subject: Re: m-bib: passing extra information to \cite
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 14:48:06 +0200
Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl
Message-ID: <3B98C206.AC626E47@elvenkind.com>
References: <3B988205.D0802432@elvenkind.com>
  <5.1.0.14.0.20010906214816.00a7bd90@public.uni-hamburg.de> <5.1.0.14.1.20010907123745.02e18ec8@server-1>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035396126 2544 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 18:02:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:02:06 +0000 (UTC)
Original-To: ConTeXt mailing list <ntg-context@ntg.nl>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:5538
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:5538

Hans Hagen wrote:
> 
> \definecomplexorsimple\cite
> 
> now \cite[bla] and \cite{bla} both work (but i favor the [] only approach).

Roughly speaking, this is what happens now. But soon we will probably have
calling conventions like \cite[...][...][..=..] or \cite {..}[..][..]{..}
(more or less the same as for \in), and supporting the latex syntax is
getting problematic. Besides that, there is usually other stuff wrong
with bibtex (latex) databases, like commands that are defined in the
preamble using \newcommand; \text... commands in the text; etc.

Eventually, I plan to phase out bibtex alltogether, and replace it with
an XML input filter (with a formalized DTD).

-- 
groeten,

Taco