>>Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:30:39 +0100 (CET) >>From: Guenter Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: Re: Re: customizing natbib >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:25:42 +0100 (MET) wrote "Jean-Pierre.Chretien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> So the question is only about the choice of the standard: >>> - using latex in an abstract field (which does not exists in the original >>> bib data structure (which knows only about note field AFAIR) or in titles >>> (which I use often) imports (La)TeX inside this piece of data >>> this is clearly not recommended for portability even if the output >>> is much better; this must be the reason why .bib is not a standard for >>> citation outside the academic world using LaTeX/LyX; >>> - using on of these standards (among which a lot are proprietary AFAIK) >>> needs conversion to bib or amsref, if ever possible without >>> licensing. >>> >>> My feeling is that the most complete format must be retained, and >>> its seems easy to regain portability by degrading the latex constructs >>> by postfiltering. For this particular point, I would say that the .bib >>> file is a de facto standard from which others should be built, >>> and I think that for once, it's up to "others". >> >>Here is the point where we need a decision: >> >> + From my browsing of the amsref-doc I learned that it is even more >> complete (offers more fields and types (e.g. lectures, artwork, >> web-documents) than bibtex. Also, LaTeX markup in amsref would not be a >> mix of two languages in one database (as amsref is LaTeX as well).
You may use the bib record structure to declare more fields than what is actually needed by the bst files (I personnaly used for a while bib records for address database indexing with bibindex), so the "import from .bib" function of amsref may perfectly use non standard .bib fields. (and the bib records clearly did evolve e.g. to include urls). >> >> - amsref is very new and not widely used. >> (the .bib file is a de facto standard) >> >>The question is: Do we like to support amsref in LyX? >> >>(I don't think LyX is the right program to maintain a database, even if it >>is in LaTeX, but the question is whether LyX could be made supporting >>citations with amsref in its WYSIWYM-style.) I think more efficient to have a standalone tool to check bib records in a given style (I have written one) than checking the database in the document. If the record is OK, it will show OK in the output, you don't even have to check it again. In that line, output check of bib records should rather be in the database maintaining tool (involving batch lyxing e.g.) than in LyX itself. >> >>May be the decision should be postponed until the impact of amsref becomes >>clear (OTOH, a nice LyX support would be boost the use of amsref and I would >>write a "pyreferencer"). Being able to select between bibtexing and amsrefxing the bib records would perhaps be a good compromise ? I guess that amsref produces a file to be inputted in the same line as the .bbl file. The bib records augmented by amsref fields will simply be reusable in bibtex, the unrecognised fields being ignored. The main point is to avoid a dialect of bib records in amsref, that is to keep with the existing fields for the same information. This *is* a pitfall because nothing prevents bibhackers to create and interpret new fields. Any status available about the currently recognised bibtex fields ? -- Jean-Pierre
