Hi all, We have many plans concerning bibliographies, and more generally, concerning database facilities. Ideally, TeXmacs should maintain a personal database of bibliographic entries for each user and it should be easy to find citations in the database, put them in a document, and get them out of a document by a co-author. This system can very well be compatible with all existing standards.
However, we are now working on fonts and several other things. So everything at its time. Best wishes, --Joris On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:02:41AM +0100, Andrea Gamba wrote: > Hi Massimiliano, > > I think that the possibility of having the bibliographic data embedded is > interesting, but should be provided as an alternative, and the possibility > to use bibtex files should be preserved. Bibtex files are a > well-established standard and many of us use them consistently for > cataloguing bibliographic data. I, for instance, have catalogued thousands > of items this way, and would not like to be forced to convert them to > another format. > > I find it really convenient to have centralized bibtex files that can be > used to provide smaller bibtex files via tools like pybcompact. I would > very much appreciate the possibility to still make reference to a > centralized bibtex file, but to be able to generate a bibtex-indipendent > file (perhaps using amsrefs as you propose) only in the end, by selecting > some item in the texmacs menu. > > Best, > Andrea > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Massimiliano Gubinelli < > massimiliano.gubine...@ceremade.dauphine.fr> wrote: > > > Hi, > > I would like to ask your opinion about the possibility of having > > bibliographic data embedded in the document instead of having them in a > > separate bib file. Personally, when using LaTeX I avoid to have bibtex > > files around, I find better to have the data inside the TeX file using the > > amsrefs package (http://www.ams.org/publications/authors/tex/amsrefs) > > and I manage my bibliographic database using Zotero ( > > http://www.zotero.org) which does not rely on bibtex files at all. This > > has the advantage that the TeX file does not need a separate bib file to > > run and also allow some more flexibility like having multiple > > bibliographies in the same file (for example this is useful in a cv where > > you have a list of your papers and maybe a list of external references, or > > various lists of your papers according to different research subjects). > > BibTeX is more rigid about this. > > > > What you think about including in TeXmacs the possibility of having the > > bibliographic data inside the document and maybe also the possibility to > > export a LaTeX file using amsrefs instead of bibtex. > > > > > > Best > > Max > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Texmacs-dev mailing list > > Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Texmacs-dev mailing list > Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list Texmacs-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev