[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: G. Branden Robinson
Subject: Re: Why does refer(1) have no database field for "edition"?
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 17:59:27 +1000
User-agent: NeoMutt/20180716

At 2021-08-02T18:23:01-0400, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2021, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> > 
> > > 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: [...]
> > 
> > If you're submitting a paper to a journal you obviously have to
> > follow the journal style (usually the editors will take care of
> > that), but for in-house documents I'm not required to use either
> > of those styles and can define my own, in which case I do have a
> > choice on how to format the bibliography.
> Indeed, but the subject under discussion is making refer(1)
> conformant to various acknowledged styles, not in-house usage.

Technically, I came to my question from more of a data normalization
perspective; I hadn't even hit the rendering/style problem yet.  If I
have multiple editions of a work (I'm a CS guy, of course I do), then I
need a way to populate my database with distinct entries for each one.
Having to do so in the %T field instantly set alarm bells ringing.

(Well, _kind of_ normalization, because the text db format for refer(1)
won't even get you 1NF, let alone farther, but I'm speaking broadly.)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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