Oliver Buerschaper wrote: >>That is the chicken and egg problem I was talking about. >>When the publication list sort order is 'by citation order', >>and 'only show cited publications' (as per ams), then \cite >>looks at the list to find the number, and the list checks >>the \cite order for what to include. All is good if the >>ref is actually there, but intercepting errors is problematic. > > I see ... just curious: do you happen to know how the LaTeX folks > handle wrong citation keys?
I assume they output ??, but I am not sure. The problem is not impossible, it is just that my implementation of crossreferencing is giving me problems. I should warn you: since there is only a problem in the module if there is a problem in the input also (so to say), rewriting large sections of the module to fix the lack of error reporting is not very high on my todo list. >>I did it this way, because I prefer better-matching page breaks over >>visual similarity. At least some of the other \cite options >>generate ?? >>instead. > > I'm afraid I don't follow you ... what does it have to do with page > breaks? If you have several unknown references in a paragraph, then something like (Xxxxx, 0000) will give you a closer approximation of the running length of the final paragraph than just ??. The difference can easily make a paragraph one line longer or shorter, thus influencing page breaks and float placement. Best, Taco _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
