On Thu, 16 May 2019 12:48:30 +0200 Denis Maier <maier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (2) there is a clear, defined standard that can be followed. > > This is actually the easier question: A few standard styles > immediately come to mind: MLA, Chicago 16th and 17 edition in its > various variants (author-date, note-bibliography, > fullnote-bibliography, both note styles with and without ibid.), > Modern Humanities Research Association... I guess having a model for > all major variants (authordate, authoryear, numeric, alphanumeric) > would be a good starting point. The main point is to have some document we can turn to as a reference so as to avoid (endless) debates about the "proper" way to do things. It has always been our intention to support more styles, but not endless variants as almost no publishers, universities and other institutions correctly follow any established specifications. > Also, we can implement more styles if (1) there is a need A call for specific use cases. -- Alan ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
