Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19442.D35B5C34@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:38:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D35B5C34" 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]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Position of \bibliographystyle (or its successor) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 1990 18:39:39 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: To: "Rainer Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 219 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D35B5C34 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sebastian suggested "and why not put \bibliographystyle before \begin{document}, where = it belongs.." This might need thinking through, bearing in mind that certain types of document may have more than one list of references. For example: Manuals produced by software houses, e.g. the SPSS-X documentation. Such manuals may, in effect, divide citations into 2 categories: 1. references to other manuals produced by the software house, which might be cited using a "short title" scheme 2. references to other literature, which might be cited using an author-date scheme. E.g. the SPSS-X Introductory Statistics Guide generally uses author-date, but gives the full reference to the SPSS-X User Guide in its preface and thereafter refers to it as "SPSS-X Users = Guide". The software house may list its own publications in the preface to its manual, putting the list of references to other literature at the back of the manual. To support this sort of thing would require something like \documentstyle{manual} \begin{document} ... % \xxx represents a command that embeds \bibliography-like % information in a preface. "software-house" represents % a style that software houses seem to like where the % reference is embedded in an explanatory paragraph. \xxx[Our other manuals]{software-house}{our-manuals} \chapter{...} ... \bibliography[Other people's = stuff]{author-date}{other-literature} where \xxx and \bibliography are assumed to have * an optional argument to specify a title * an argument to specify the scheme (like \bibliographystyle = does) * an argument to specify the bib files. Books. It might be sensible to divide a book's references into 2 lists, = e.g. "References" and "Further reading". E.g. the draft revised = British Standard for theses suggests having "Bibliography" as well as = "List of references". It might also be sensible to have different = styles for the 2 lists: perhaps a concise style for the "References", but a style that prints some extra information about the "Further reading". The author might want to specify something = like \documentstyle{...} \begin{document} ... \bibliography[References]{author-date}{specific-books} \bibliography[Further reading]{annotated}{general-books} ... [Such sub-division seems to be countenanced by the gurus, e.g. = Chicago Manual of Style (p. 425) and Butcher's Copy-editing (p. 183,192).] Unfortunately, such considerations lead to more questions like "How does one arrange that \cite gives (...) around author-date citations, but not = around short-title citations?" and "Can a root file have several bbl files and = what would they be called?", and I don't know the answers. At the moment, I just think that it would be better to refrain from = putting \bibliographystyle before \begin{document} until the implications for documents that have more than one list of references have been thought = through. Otherwise there might be a change to "\bibliographystyle before \begin{document}" at LaTeX 3.0 followed by another change (e.g. to "bibliography style as argument of \bibliography") in some subsequent = LaTeX. David = Rhead ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D35B5C34 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Position of \bibliographystyle (or its successor)

Sebastian suggested
     "and why not put = \bibliographystyle before \begin{document}, where it
      belongs.."

This might need thinking through, bearing in mind that = certain types of
document may have more than one list of = references.  For example:
Manuals produced by software houses, e.g. the SPSS-X = documentation.
      Such manuals may, in = effect, divide citations into 2 categories:
      1.  references to = other manuals produced by the software house,
          which = might be cited using a "short title" scheme
      2.  references to = other literature, which might be cited using
          an = author-date scheme.
      E.g. the SPSS-X = Introductory Statistics Guide generally uses
      author-date, but gives = the full reference to the SPSS-X User Guide
      in its preface and = thereafter refers to it as "SPSS-X Users Guide".
      The software house may = list its own publications in the preface to
      its manual, putting = the list of references to other literature
      at the back of the = manual.  To support this sort of thing would
      require something = like
          &nbs= p; \documentstyle{manual}
          &nbs= p; \begin{document}
          &nbs= p; ...
          &nbs= p; %  \xxx represents a command that embeds = \bibliography-like
          &nbs= p; %  information in a preface.  "software-house" = represents
          &nbs= p; %  a style that software houses seem to like where the
          &nbs= p; %  reference is embedded in an explanatory paragraph.
          &nbs= p; \xxx[Our other manuals]{software-house}{our-manuals}
          &nbs= p; \chapter{...}
          &nbs= p; ...
          &nbs= p; \bibliography[Other people's = stuff]{author-date}{other-literature}
      where \xxx and = \bibliography are assumed to have
      *  an optional = argument to specify a title
      *  an argument to = specify the scheme (like \bibliographystyle does)
      *  an argument to = specify the bib files.
Books.  It might be sensible to divide a book's = references into 2 lists, e.g.
      "References" = and "Further reading".  E.g. the draft revised = British
      Standard for theses = suggests having "Bibliography" as well as "List
      of = references".  It might also be sensible to have different = styles
      for the 2 lists:  = perhaps a concise style for the "References",
      but a style that = prints some extra information about the
      "Further = reading".  The author might want to specify something = like
          &nbs= p; \documentstyle{...}
          &nbs= p; \begin{document}
          &nbs= p; ...
          &nbs= p; \bibliography[References]{author-date}{specific-books}
          &nbs= p; \bibliography[Further reading]{annotated}{general-books}
          &nbs= p; ...
      [Such sub-division = seems to be countenanced by the gurus, e.g. Chicago
      Manual of Style (p. = 425) and Butcher's Copy-editing (p. 183,192).]
Unfortunately, such considerations lead to more = questions like "How does
one arrange that \cite gives (...) around author-date = citations, but not around
short-title citations?"  and "Can a = root file have several bbl files and what
would they be called?", and I don't know the = answers.

At the moment, I just think that it would be better to = refrain from putting
\bibliographystyle before \begin{document} until the = implications for
documents that have more than one list of references = have been thought through.
Otherwise there might be a change to = "\bibliographystyle before
\begin{document}" at LaTeX 3.0 followed by = another change (e.g. to
"bibliography style as argument of = \bibliography") in some subsequent LaTeX.

          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;     David Rhead

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D35B5C34--