Guenter Milde wrote: > 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). > > - 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.) > > 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").
I'm not an experienced user, but I'll share my opinion anyway. Recently I turned in my final project documentation for my telecommunications engineering degree. Unfortunately my school uses a very non-standard bibliography style, so I had to modify a .bst file (and no, I wasn't able to get all the formatting I needed with custom-bib). That took up an important amount of time. At the time I wasn't aware of amsrefs and by the time I found out about it, I was too close to the due date to change. Besides I needed the bibentry package (they also require FULL citations in the text...). I haven't looked into amsrefs very much, but I think the possibility of modifying the bibliography style in a _SIMPLE_ way is definitely appealing. In fact, I believe that is one of BibTeX's biggest problems. IIRC, I read that Oren Patashnik plans to change that in the new version of BibTeX. Anyway, I think supporting amsrefs as well as bibtex would definitely make LyX a lot more versatile. Quite a few people have posted about modifying the bib style, that says a lot. Regards, Roberto
