[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

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

Best regards,


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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]