Re: Why does refer(1) have no database field for "edition"?

[Peter Schaffter]

On Mon, Aug 02, 2021, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> 
> > > Why does refer(1) have no database field for "edition"?
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Certainly it can be extended, but it would be useful if
> there were some general agreement on which character to use
> (preferably something mnemonic;  "E" is already taken by
> "editor"), unless you are satisfied with a solution that
> works only with one macro package (if competing approaches
> are taken by the writers of different macro packages).

Mom uses %e for edition.  It's the best candidate since it has
a twenty year history of being used in mom documents.  No other
package I know of claims it, meaning, in real terms, that its use is
established (sort of).
 
> Sticking it onto the end of the title field is ugly, because
> one might like the title to be printed in italics, whereas the
> edition is "meta information" and should therefore perhaps be
> in the regular font.

There are no should therefores or guesswork when it comes to
formatting bibliographies.  Where edition goes and how it's
formatted is fixed by the style:

*Chicago puts it after the title, preceded by a comma, in roman,
followed by the publication data in parentheses.

*APA places it in parentheses after the title, in roman, with a
period after the right parens.

*MLA puts it after the title, preceded by a period, in roman,
followed by a comma, followed by the publication data.

Those are the only ones I know, but you catch my drift.

-- 
Peter Schaffter
https://www.schaffter.ca