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:         Fri, 8 Jun 90 18:46:00 PDT
Reply-To: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1@unido.bitnet>
From: Don Hosek <DHOSEK@HMCVAX.bitnet>
Subject:      Citations
To: Rainer Schoepf <BK4@DHDURZ1.uucp>
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 125

Certain citation styles have two forms, the full citation and then a shorter
form if the citation appears just after the author's name, e.g.,

It has been shown elsewhere (Knuth 1990) that...

and

Knuth (1990) has shown...

I won't go into the pros and cons of this citation style as an expository
device. The only thing that really matters in this discussion is that certain
journals require this style and don't want to see anything else.

Now, the de facto standard at the moment seems to be to use \cite{knuth} for the

former citation and \shortcite{knuth} for the latter.

Personally, I think that it would be more consistent if one used \cite{knuth}
and \cite*{knuth}. Those bibliography styles that don't have two forms would
produce identical results with both forms.

Comments?

-dh