On Sep 15, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote: > At first I was sure that (2006a) and (2006b) are the right answer for > the list. Othewise how else could the user know which entry to look > up when they see, say, Hoekwater (2006b) in the text? But I just > figured out the answer to that question: Users count 'a', 'b', > ... starting with the first 2006 entry. However, I still don't think > it's a good idea to make them do that. Let's not ask users to do what > computers do very well (counting)! > > Let me know whether I'm understanding it correctly. If you have a > numbered reference list, then the year can still end up with a letter > tag, e.g. > > 1. Taco Hoekwater. JournalA. 2006a > 2. Taco Hoekwater. JournalB. 2006b > > Ah, I hadn't thought of that problem. You're right, there shouldn't > be a maybeyear in this case since the list number disambiguates the > reference completely. > Sanjoy,
yes, I agree completely: let the computer do the counting and bookkeeping! And you've hit the nail on the head: what I meant was, in cases where the form of the list makes the reference completely unambiguous (because it is numbered or because keys/authoryear tags are prefixed), adding another number in the bibliographic entry is superfluous and somewhat ugly. So question to Taco: maybe we need three options for maybeyear? 1. off [always] 2. on [always] 3. on for tags and authoryear etc., off for the date entry in the list itself. Am I making sense? Are we working you to the bones? ;-) Best Thomas _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
