[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Bibulus-dev] An optimal \cite command for Bibulus
From: |
Thomas Widmann |
Subject: |
[Bibulus-dev] An optimal \cite command for Bibulus |
Date: |
Mon, 31 May 2004 13:50:16 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
[This is a courtesy copy of a Usenet posting -- not just a private email]
Hi there!
The Bibulus project (see p. 760 in TLC2) has reached a stage where we
really need to define the ultimate \cite command. (It will not be a
problem to provide backwards compatibility, so please think only about
how such a command should look ideally.)
Since the number of people on the bibulus-dev mailing list is not
enormous, I thought it would be good to get feedback from c.t.t.
I believe the main requirement is that the same commands can be used
for all citation styles. For instance, "This was first done by
\citet{knuth}." might generate i.a. the following:
Numerical: This was first done by Knuth [12].
Num. footnote: This was first done by Knuth.¹²
Alpha: This was first done by Knuth [Knu86].
Author-year: This was first done by Knuth (1986).
Footnote: This was first done by Knuth.³
3) D.E. Knuth, The \TeX{}book, 1986.
In text: This was first done by Knuth (ibid).
This probably just requires a distinction between cite-in-text
(natbib \citet) and cite-in-brackets (natbib \citep), although it
possibly might be useful to split up \citet into cite-author (Knuth
[12]) and cite-title (\emph{The \TeX{}book} [12]).
There seems to be one largish problem with the natbib citation
commands, however: It is possible to cite more than one title in one
citation (\citep{key1,key2} -> (Jones et al., 1990, 1992) or similar),
and it is possible to add some additional text such as a page number:
\citep[see][chap. 2]{key} -> (see Jones et al., 1990, chap. 2). Alas,
these two features cannot be combined easily.
Camel seems to be able to combine two separate \source{...} commands
into one footnote, although I must admit I don't understand how this
is done.
Alternatively, one could have one grouping command with \cites within,
e.g.:
\citegroupp{\cite[21]{key1} \cite[4]{key2}}
That would be very cumbersome for the majority of citations, however.
One could also try to allow some form of complex content within the
\cite command, such as:
\citep{key1 (page 21); key2 (page 4)}
\citep{key1/21;key2/4}
\citep{[key1, 21] [key2, 4]}
The latter syntax might be ideal, since it would allow extra text
within, without having to use pre- and post-texts.
For instance, by specifying:
\citep{For a summary see [lewis1968, 194-207]; for the Nationality
Law see [davison1963, 262]}
one could get output like the following:
69 For a summary see B. Lewis, _Emergence_, pp. 194-207; for the
Nationality Law see Davison, _Reform_, p. 262.
(a real-life example from "Kosovo: A Short History").
Or is it silly to treat this as a long citation and not just a
footnote with citations in it?
Any ideas, comments and other feedback will be much appreciated!
/Thomas
--
Thomas Widmann Bye-bye to BibTeX: join the Bibulus project now!
address@hidden <http://www.bibulus.org>
Glasgow, Scotland, EU <http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/bibulus/>
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Bibulus-dev] An optimal \cite command for Bibulus,
Thomas Widmann <=