[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: Dave Kemper
Subject: Re: Why does refer(1) have no database field for "edition"?
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2021 02:39:25 -0500

On 8/3/21, Peter Schaffter <> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
>> 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?
> Not unless (until?) it's implemented for all the canoncical macro
> packages.  I proposed %e as a candidate for the edition field
> because it's been around long enough in mom that it makes sense for
> other macro packages to follow suit.  Plus it has the advantage of
> being a meaningful mnenmonic.

I would think those factors warrant documenting it (as currently a
mom-only field) in the refer man page.  This way if someone wants to
take on the task of adding this field to another macro package, the
prior art is documented in a central place, and it's more likely to
get implemented in a compatible way.  (An mm hacker wanting to extend
refer functionality in mm will likely check the refer man page but may
not think to look at the mom docs.)

> Mom implements five additional fields
> for Internet sources as required by MLA:

For the same reasons, these should probably also be in the refer page
(also tagged as mom-only for now).

> nowhere is there any indication what style of bibliographic
> formatting is provided by the ms/mm/me implementations of refer(1)

I opened for this.

reply via email to

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