why not use BibTeXML about latexml HOT 2 CLOSED

It certainly is tempting - I really don’t want to maintain a separate
bibtex model, nor write a bibtex conversion (which I’m contemplating right now).

However, there’s a couple of roadblocks:
(1) there seem to be only rng schema, no dtds.
(2) as near as I understand it, the schema assume text for the fields,
(with no clear way of customizing), whereas I need latexml’s inline model.
(3) I’m unclear what tool is really the current one (python, java, online).

from latexml.

After a lot of asking around and googling, the likely candidate
bibliogrphy formats include at least BibTeXML, MODS, …
Unfortunately, none of these formats provides a form of schema
that allows easy extension & incorporation. Particularly,
the leaf nodes in most elements would need to be changed
from plain text to LaTeXML’s inline model.

So, the next best thing was to adopt a schema “inspired by”,
and MODS seemed to be the most useful here.

I have rewritten the bib module in LaTeXML’s schema along
these lines. I have also implemented a bibtex mode for
latexml that will parse a *.bib file before conversion.
In the meantime, I have also adapted amsrefs to use the
new schema, and leverage the bibtex code.

Currently, the MakeBibliography postprocessing module uses
a built-in fixed format. A future enhancement (but probably
only if people bug me about it) would be to implement a
CiteProc interpretter, so that the bibliography would be
formatted according to a Citation Style Language (CSL) file.

from latexml.