Implement as Treeprocessor about asciidoctor-bibtex HOT 12 CLOSED

Maybe we shall move asciidoc to asciidoc support into a seperate class, to make the code cleaner.

from asciidoctor-bibtex.

@mojavelinux, How can I create an ordered list or an unordered list and replace the corrent block with the generated content in a treeprocessor? I have tried several approaches but no success yet.

from asciidoctor-bibtex.

Solved. Asciidoctor::Extension::parse_content can construct an AST from any content. So I can generated required asciidoc conent and use parse_content to generate blocks. To replace current block with new blocks, operate directly on block.parent.blocks.

from asciidoctor-bibtex.

That's indeed one way to do it. You can also construct the nodes using the API. It's best to look at the core parser to see how it's done.

• https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor/blob/master/lib/asciidoctor/parser.rb#L1144
• https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor/blob/master/lib/asciidoctor/parser.rb#L1288

Obviously you don't need to do the parsing...just create the :ulist block and add child ListItem objects to it. If you need a simple example, I can try to put one together.

from asciidoctor-bibtex.

Thanks, @mojavelinux. I experimented with the idea and it works well.

from asciidoctor-bibtex.

BTW. Is it possible for this extension to become part of asciidoctor.org? @mojavelinux

from asciidoctor-bibtex.

I experimented with the idea and it works well.

Great!

Is it possible for this extension to become part of asciidoctor.org?

Indeed. That would be wonderful! I think it will be less confusing for people if we disassociate from the asciidoc-bib fork. It will also give us more freedom to take it in our own direction. We can certainly reference asciidoc-bib in the README and explain that this extension was inspired by that one. But I don't think that we are a fork in the GitHub definition of the term.

Do you foresee the project supporting other bibliography schemas, or will it remain focused on bibtex? I ask because if it's the former, we might consider naming it asciidoctor-bibliography (similar to asciidoctor-diagram). But only if that's the case.

from asciidoctor-bibtex.

It is of course possible for this project to support other bibliography schemas. But since bibtex is used so widely in the scientific community, I would like to focus on bibtex and make it perfect. Focusing on bibtex also makes it easy to integrate with the latex toolchain, which is the de-facto standard in scientific publication.

One problem we may face when disassociating from the asciidoc-bib fork is the licence. asciidoc-bib is licenced under OpenWorks licence, which makes me doub if we can safely disassociate from the original package, since this extension reuses a lot of its code. Anyway, this extension is quite different from asciidoc-bib, and we can contact the original author if disassociation is necessary.

from asciidoctor-bibtex.

I checked the OpenWorks licence, it has almost no restrictions, given the licence itself is included somewhere in the software. So I will take your suggestion and brand this extension as "inspired by asciidoc-bib".

By the way, I have made a transfer request for this extension to be part of asciidoctor.org. Would you please check it? @mojavelinux

from asciidoctor-bibtex.

Hi, @mojavelinux, I have transfered the repo to asciidoctor.org but lost all administration rights (see #12 ). Would you please help restore it? Thanks a lot.

from asciidoctor-bibtex.

since bibtex is used so widely in the scientific community, I would like to focus on bibtex and make it perfect

Sounds good to me! I was asking in order to understand how best to choose a name for the project. Since the focus will remain on bibtex, I think we should keep the current name.

which makes me doub if we can safely disassociate from the original package

When I say "disassociate", I merely mean removing the upstream link on GitHub. That is unrelated to licensing compliance as it's specific to the GitHub UI.

we can contact the original author if disassociation is necessary.

We have every right to make that decision ourselves.

from asciidoctor-bibtex.

I've asked GitHub to remove the fork status.

from asciidoctor-bibtex.