2013/5/29 Tim Lyons <guy.linton@gmail.com>
enno wrote
> To prevent that, I'm considering using only a small set of generic
> attributes like folio, page, line, volume. If they are part of the
> standard vocabulary, I can create my own templates for input of all
> sorts of citation types, but rely on the receiving user's config for the
> conversion of a set of attributes to a citation string.

Oh you could call them Title, Author, Publication information, Date and
Page/Volume.

Oh hang on a minute, that is what we have already got.

As someone else points out, you can achieve most of what is wanted by the
code that formats the citation from the existing fields.

Nobody ever claimed that the people who made GEDCOM were stupid. It's a very good base to start from.
The fields of GEDCOM don't allow export to bibtex, or other styling though as usual in academic circles. Is it needed? Not as a core business. Is it nice to have? I think it is. Main problem with the GEDCOM fields seems to be that users first need to understand it, read the docs, see some examples, ... . That is not how most people start with genealogy.

Benny