Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19442.D3E97B8C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:38:48 +0100 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 "^From:" nil nil nil]) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D3E97B8C" x-vm-vheader: ("From:" "Sender:" "Resent-From" "To:" "Apparently-To:" "Cc:" "Subject:" "Date:" "Resent-Date:") nil X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 x-vm-bookmark: 1 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Bibliography styles Date: Wed, 5 Sep 1990 16:21:19 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Michael Downes" To: "Rainer Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 231 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D3E97B8C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable According to my experience David Rhead's suggestions (August 13) for the \bibliography command would be very useful: \bibliography[References]{author-date}{specific-books} \bibliography[Further reading]{annotated}{general-books} with a bibliography style argument and an optional substitute title argument. Also, in recent work I have run into a minor problem in setting the appropriate label width in the environment `thebibliography', in a documentstyle where numbered bibliography items have numbers of the form 23. Author name ... and lettered items have labels of the form [ABC] Author name ... Commonly definitions of \thebibliography, e.g., in article.sty, factor in a pair of square brackets when computing the label width to be used for the entire bibliography: ..\settowidth\labelwidth{[#1]}... This means when the items are numbered instead of lettered the computed width is slightly off. In order to be able to compute the width exactly it seems that \thebibliography needs to take into account the bibliography style being used. Or BibTeX could write an appropriate \settowidth command into the .bbl file---but then what if an author only has say 10 or 15 references and chooses to type them by hand rather than using BibTeX? In such a case there usually is no reference to bibliography style anywhere in the document, since both \bibliographystyle and \bibliography are for use with BibTeX. The natural idea would be an additional `style' argument for the `thebibliography' environment. (Frame of reference: a journal or collection of articles with a common documentstyle but with different bibliography styles used by different authors.) I'm not sure whether the advantage gained would be worth the attendant complications. It would be possible to define \@bibitem in a more complicated way so that the first \bibitem would adjust \labelwidth if it turned out to be a numbered item rather than a lettered item. That seems a little forced, though. I suppose you could also define \thebibliography so that it checks the first character in the `widest label' argument to see if it's a number or a letter. Bibliographies come in many forms, however, and it seems that exotic cases would be most easily handled by an extra (maybe optional?) argument of \thebibliography. MJD ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D3E97B8C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bibliography styles

According to my experience David Rhead's suggestions = (August 13) for
the \bibliography command would be very = useful:

      = \bibliography[References]{author-date}{specific-books}
      \bibliography[Further = reading]{annotated}{general-books}

with a bibliography style argument and an optional = substitute
title argument.

Also, in recent work I have run into a minor problem = in setting the
appropriate label width in the environment = `thebibliography', in a
documentstyle where numbered bibliography items have = numbers of the
form

23. Author name ...

and lettered items have labels of the form

[ABC] Author name ...

Commonly definitions of \thebibliography, e.g., in = article.sty,
factor in a pair of square brackets when computing = the label width
to be used for the entire bibliography:

..\settowidth\labelwidth{[#1]}...

This means when the items are numbered instead of = lettered the computed
width is slightly off.  In order to be able to = compute the width
exactly it seems that \thebibliography needs to take = into account the
bibliography style being used.  Or BibTeX could = write an appropriate
\settowidth command into the .bbl file---but then = what if an author
only has say 10 or 15 references and chooses to type = them by hand
rather than using BibTeX?  In such a case there = usually is no reference
to bibliography style anywhere in the document, since = both
\bibliographystyle and \bibliography are for use with = BibTeX.

The natural idea would be an additional `style' = argument for the
`thebibliography' environment.  (Frame of = reference: a journal or
collection of articles with a common documentstyle = but with different
bibliography styles used by different authors.) I'm = not sure whether
the advantage gained would be worth the attendant = complications.

It would be possible to define \@bibitem in a more = complicated way so
that the first \bibitem would adjust \labelwidth if = it turned out to be
a numbered item rather than a lettered item.  = That seems a little
forced, though.  I suppose you could also define = \thebibliography so
that it checks the first character in the `widest = label' argument to
see if it's a number or a letter.  = Bibliographies come in many forms,
however, and it seems that exotic cases would be most = easily handled
by an extra (maybe optional?) argument of = \thebibliography.

MJD

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D3E97B8C--