X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil]
	[nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil])
Date:         Wed, 28 Feb 90 17:44:18 CET
Reply-To: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1@unido.bitnet>
Sender: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1@unido.bitnet>
From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.COM>
Subject:      Re: more indexes etc.
To: Rainer Schoepf <BK4@DHDURZ1.uucp>
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 41

i agree with malcolm's suggestion that multiple indexes and
bibliographies both be considered.
the bibliography scheme now in use would render latex unsatisfactory
for a book the math society published last year in honor of its 100th
anniversary.  part of it was a survey of mathematical publications over
the period, and there were many small bibliographies interspersed with
commentary.  (fortunately, the amstex bibliography scheme was easily
adapted to accomplish this, and the enhancement has been made a
permanent part of the preprint style as of amstex 2.0.)
i am preparing a list of suggestions for oren patashnik to consider
in his work on upgrading bibtex, and i will be happy to forward a copy
(when i get it finished -- i'm under deadline pressures this week and
will be away at a meeting all of next week) to anyone who is interested.
                                                -- bb
-------