Just out of curiosity, what would be the benefits of this? I mean, usually the papers I refer to have both the doi and the link to the abstract, and both take to the same url. Idk how this is for other research areas.

the link to the abstract

What link though? The html field, which al-folio has, isn't standard in Bib(La)Tex. The url field would be but for whatever reason al-folio has chosen to go its own way.
The doi field is also standard, but very explicit about what it links to. url/html may be anything.

Right now, I have to manually change every entry for al-folio to change its doi or url field (which every BibTex exporter outputs) to html to have any kind of link. Kind of unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.

And nobody is forced to have two links to the same thing. You can do what you always have done: only use html. Or you can change those to doi instead (or have them work out of the box). Even when you import entries with both doi and url fields, you still only get a doi link with this ("thanks" to al-folio ignoring url).

And nobody is forced to have two links to the same thing. You can do what you always have done: only use html. Or you can change those to doi instead (or have them work out of the box). Even when you import entries with both doi and url fields, you still only get a doi link with this ("thanks" to al-folio ignoring url).

There's no need to be passive agressive here. I don't use a BibTex exporter, I copy them straight from the source and adapt as needed, so my use of it is different from yours.

About the keys used, I agree that html is not a very good choice, url is better. But just so we don't break what is working for others, can you add to this PR the use of url also? I mean, check if either url or html is defined, use url as the main one and html as a fallback.

I don't use a BibTex exporter, I copy them straight from the source and adapt as needed, so my use of it is different from yours.

I don't mean any special BibTex exporter, but even when copied directly from the source of major publishers like ACM the entry will have a doi field already.
Also, al-folio users could already be usind the doi field because some publication metric badges already use that.

But just so we don't break what is working for others, can you add to this PR the use of url also? I mean, check if either url or html is defined, use url as the main one and html as a fallback.

That would still break existing uses, when someone has defined html (because it was the only option before), but they also kept url (which was ignored by al-folio, but shown by the BIB button still) while having html and url be different. I can imagine people already using the HTML field and button to link to some HTML page for the paper, which isn't necessarily the publisher's (DOI) page, but their own website for the paper.
al-folio itself even covers the possibility of such pages being part of the same website, it an absolute URL:

So what do you suggest? Keep html as the main option, url as fallback?

So what do you suggest? Keep html as the main option, url as fallback?

That's a possibility, although maybe having a button named "HTML" for the url field is also a bit odd. As in, why isn't the button then "URL", just like how every other button and field name matches up?

Could have them as two completely separate things and everyone can choose in their own bib file which they prefer. Changing to the html field for al-folio always required manual attention, so it's not that much extra burden.

I will merge this PR. Can you open another issue to rename html to url?