[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: Tadziu Hoffmann
Subject: Re: Why does refer(1) have no database field for "edition"?
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 14:41:18 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)

> > Inaugurate a GNU extension?  <evil laugh>

> Indeed, but the subject under discussion is making refer(1)
> conformant to various acknowledged styles, not in-house usage.

But isn't that the job of the macro package, not refer?

I guess the question is "How can refer make that job easier?",
which you answered by saying that mom defines a new database
field for the edition.  If we consider this usage the status
quo, should it be documented with an appropriate entry in the
list of field names in the refer manual page?

(The manual page does speak of the "conventional meaning" of
each field, implying that this is by common agreement rather
than by rule of an authority.)

reply via email to

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