bibulus-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[Bibulus-dev] Re: Splitting up IN... entries


From: Arne Jørgensen
Subject: [Bibulus-dev] Re: Splitting up IN... entries
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 21:04:32 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.090018 (Oort Gnus v0.18) Emacs/20.7 (gnu/linux)

address@hidden (Thomas M. Widmann) writes:

> Hi,
>
> I've got an idea: Is there any reason to define the article and the
> journal together, e.g.:
>
>   <article id="sampling" xml:lang="en">
>     <author>
>       <name nametype="familylast">
>         <given>Jan</given>
>         <family>Rijkhoff</family>
>       </name>
>       <name nametype="familylast">
>         <given>Dik</given>
>         <family>Bakker</family>
>       </name>
>     </author>
>     <title>Language Sampling</title>
>     <journal>Linguistic Typology</journal>
>     <volume>2</volume>
>     <number>3</number>
>     <pages>263--314</pages>
>     <year>1998</year>
>   </article>
>
> instead of:
>
>   <article id="sampling" xml:lang="en">
>     <crossref id='sampling-PART2'/>
>     <author>
>       <name nametype="familylast">
>         <given>Jan</given>
>         <family>Rijkhoff</family>
>       </name>
>       <name nametype="familylast">
>         <given>Dik</given>
>         <family>Bakker</family>
>       </name>
>     </author>
>     <title>Language Sampling</title>
>     <pages>263--314</pages>
>   </article>
>
>   <magazine id="sampling-PART2" xml:lang="en">
>     <journal>Linguistic Typology</journal>
>     <volume>2</volume>
>     <number>3</number>
>     <year>1998</year>
>   </magazine>
>
> The same applies to InBook -> Book, InCollection -> Book and
> InProceedings -> Proceedings.

Cross referencing seems like a cleaner and better solutions. IMHO.

> Currently, both are possible, but it makes the DTD rather complicated.
> Furthermore, BibTeX will move a crossref'ed entry into the
> crossref'ing entry if it is crossref'ed only once (actually defined by
> the -min-crossrefs command line option to BibTeX), but AFAIK this
> breaks if some entries are defined with crossrefs while other entries
> are not.
>
> So my question is:  Is there any need for allowing both (apart from
> convenience when inputting the entry)?

Doing things the right way is a good restriction ;-)

Skål

        /arne
-- 
stud. scient. Arne Jørgensen
DK-TUG / Danish TeX Users Group

<http://www.tug.dk/>





reply via email to

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