On Mon, 24 May 2021 23:10:34 -0400
Rik Kabel <cont...@rik.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/24/2021 22:12, Alan Braslau wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 May 2021 17:53:49 -0400
> > Rik Kabel <cont...@rik.users.panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is intended. Or rather, it is a side-effect of the intended
> >> behavior.
> >>
> >> If you add an editor ("editor={Baz, Bar}") you will get something
> >> like:
> >>
> >> Foo, B. (1983). Title of the paper. In B. Baz (Ed.),
> >> /Booktitle/. Author.
> >>
> >> And if you then add a publisher ("publisher={Paymefirst}") you will
> >> get:
> >>
> >> Foo, B. (1983). Title of the paper. In B. Bar (Ed.),
> >> Booktitle. Paymefirst.
> >>
> >> The APA presumes that you have both an editor and a publisher for
> >> pieces contained in other works. It calls for the use of the author
> >> as publisher if no publisher is present. It is silent about what to
> >> do if you have no editor.
> > It looks like a missing editor field should be caught. What should
> > the rule be?
> >
> > Actually, @inproceedings should not be used without an editor -
> > makes no sense. If the author of the paper happens to be the
> > editor, then the .bib data file should define this with an editor=
> > field.
> >
> > We can change the behavior if a clear case can be made as to what
> > fallback would make sense. Keep in mind the dictum: "garbage
> > in/garbage out"...
> >
> > Alan
>
> For the case of works within works (inproceedings, inbook,
> incollection, perhaps conference) I would think that the simplest
> solution is to simply drop it, so that in the example above one would
> simply get:
>
> Foo, B. (1983). Title of the paper. In /Booktitle/. Paymefirst.
>
> Although I do think that, at least for inproceedings, lack of an
> editor should at least be flagged. A simple compilation of works may
> have no named editor, of I see no reason to require it for inbook or
> incollection. Cheap publishers regularly put out such collections of
> out-of-copyright works.
>
> The implicit assumption that a work with no documented publisher is a
> self-published work is not especially to my liking -- publishers may
> have good reason to not identify themselves (think of the publishers
> of the works of Spinoza and, in part, Voltaire) -- but I understand
> that the APA thinks it important. Of course, if you cannot document
> the publisher for an entry, you can explicitly list it as unknown or
> /sine nomine/, as appropriate, to avoid the infelicity of having the
> author's name just stuck in there.
I sent a simple fix to Hans that handles the missing editor, silently.
Someone who would want "Anonymous" or "unknown", or anything else can
always put editor="Anonymous", etc. in their .bib database.
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
