Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19442.D2FB156C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:38:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D2FB156C" 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: Re: Position of \bibliographystyle Date: Tue, 14 Aug 1990 11:00:33 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Sebastian Rahtz" To: "Rainer Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 220 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D2FB156C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > "and why not put \bibliographystyle before \begin{document}, = where it > belongs.." David Rhead has some sensible cautionary remarks, and I would concur with his underlying thesis that the bibliography support in LaTeX/BibTeX has definite lacunae. He identifies the problem > This might need thinking through, bearing in mind that certain types = of > document may have more than one list of references. For example: and suggests a formulation along the lines of > \bibliography[References]{author-date}{specific-books} > \bibliography[Further reading]{annotated}{general-books} this is interesting, but nobody will thank anyone for changing the basic syntax of a LaTeX command in the near future. I would suggest retaining \bibliography as it is documented, and implementing David's suggestions with others as new commands. ... such as separate bibliographies for chapters - whatever LL or OP say about it being so = much work to do a multi-chapter book that sets of bibliographies being not much more work, I don't see why we shouldn't get it in one day. People *do* want it. I am on my fourth conference proceedings in as many years, and I dont enjoy building the slightly complicated Makefile to get all the references in the right place up to date. but I continue to say that the user who puts \bibliographystyle before \begin{document} is behaving intuitively, and should therefore be allowed to do it. lets keep `bibliography' for the relatively simple academic type that LL and OP envisaged, and invent a new term (\reference?) for what David Rhead is talking about. sebastian ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D2FB156C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Position of \bibliographystyle

 >      "and why = not put \bibliographystyle before \begin{document}, where it
 >       = belongs.."
David Rhead has some sensible cautionary remarks, and = I would concur
with his underlying thesis that the bibliography = support in
LaTeX/BibTeX has definite lacunae. He identifies the = problem

 > This might need thinking through, bearing = in mind that certain types of
 > document may have more than one list of = references.  For example:

and suggests a formulation along the lines of
 >         =     = \bibliography[References]{author-date}{specific-books}
 >         =     \bibliography[Further = reading]{annotated}{general-books}

this is interesting, but nobody will thank anyone for = changing the
basic syntax of a LaTeX command in the near future. I = would suggest
retaining \bibliography as it is documented, and = implementing David's
suggestions with others as new commands. ... such as = separate
bibliographies for chapters - whatever LL or OP say = about it being so much
work to do a multi-chapter book that sets of = bibliographies being not
much more work, I don't see why we shouldn't get it = in one day. People
*do* want it. I am on my fourth conference = proceedings in as many
years, and I dont enjoy building the slightly = complicated Makefile to
get all the references in the right place up to = date.

but I continue to say that the user who puts = \bibliographystyle before
\begin{document} is behaving intuitively, and should = therefore be
allowed to do it. lets keep `bibliography' for the = relatively simple
academic type that LL and OP envisaged, and invent a = new term
(\reference?) for what David Rhead is talking = about.

sebastian

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D2FB156C--