[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: Peter Schaffter
Subject: Re: Why does refer(1) have no database field for "edition"?
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 15:49:01 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)

On Mon, Aug 02, 2021, Oliver Corff wrote:
> 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?

The only real issue would be establishing the most efficient way
to make the different biblio styles available to the various macro
packages.  Without bothering to check (it's a holiday in Canada
today and I intend not to work), piggy-backing on the existent
refer-mm/ms/me.tmac and refer.tmac arrangement might do the

The one caveat is that bibliography style is intimately linked with
citation style, so switching to a style different from a macro
package's default might require changes within the package's tmac
file as well.

Peter Schaffter

reply via email to

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