El 23/03/2012 12:33 a.m., Niklas Huldén escribió:
On 22.3.2012 20:36, David L. Johnson wrote:
On 03/22/2012 02:08 PM, Alex Vergara Gil wrote:
I have an objection to the use of bibitems in LyX: If you use BibTeX
you can choose the bibliographic standard such as Vancouver, etc,
besides the BibTeX sorts bibliography items in the required order
acordingly to the standard; with LyX's bibitems you simply cannot do
this and is like turning back to MS Office. Is this a bug?
No, it's not a bug. Perhaps it's old-fashioned, but I've never seen the
need to bother with bibtex. Most of my papers have maybe 5-10
references, that is certainly easy enough to do "by hand".
The bibitems are also extremely convenient to use if you have to cite
more odd sources like interviews from certain archives and so on. I
usually have two environments for my sources; first the oddballs from
different archives as bibitems, followed by the literature references
as a BibTeX bibliography. Both can be seen in the LyX citing menus.
Niklas Huldén
Imagine now that you have finished your work, but then your editor
tells you that he wants the bibliography in Vancouver format, but you
have write it in consecutive order of appearance format, then you must
re-sort one by one all the cites, imagine now that your work is a book
with 1e3 cites... You cannot educate all the editors in the planet, so
they agree from what they ask in the beginning and what they ask for
your final work (in thet period his/her taste might have changed, or the
publisher might change the requirements, etc)
I simply cannot imagine doing this right now with LyX without BibTeX. My
objective with this discussion is that BibTex must be integrated into
LyX in a way it is transparent for editors. Remember, as a general rule
editors doesn't want more than one file to read or to compile.
As an advantage we gain is to have the behaviour you mentioned but now
with the power of BibTeX to re-sort and re-format cites.
Cheers
Alex
