|
From: | Oliver Corff |
Subject: | Re: Why does refer(1) have no database field for "edition"? |
Date: | Mon, 2 Aug 2021 18:30:44 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 |
Hello Peter, since you have demonstrated with mom how to extend the standard, if not to say "frozen" capabilities of the macros for refer(1), and with regard to the offline conversation we already had on the topic of bibliography styles, what would be your verdict on the idea to isolate the bibliography processing part (that is, understand %c fields and formatting) and put everything into a macro package of its own, perhaps with an interface to introducing more bibliography styles? From your perspective as the creator of a full-fledged macro package, what are the caveats? Best regards, Oliver. On 02/08/2021 17:40, Peter Schaffter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2021, G. Branden Robinson wrote:Why does refer(1) have no database field for "edition"? GNU refer doesn't. Neither did AT&T refer according to my searches.The lacuna isn't in refer(1), but in the macro packages using it. Any %c, where c is an alphabetic character, can be used to create a field refer(1) understands. It is up to macro writers to work out the the formatting and placement within a refer(1) citation or bibliography entry.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |