Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.469F570C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:42:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 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]) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.469F570C" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Reference-by-number scheme: order of punctuation & number Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1991 01:00:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 381 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.469F570C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Certain journals that use the reference-by-number scheme of citation = have a style that involves citation-numbers in brackets. Others have a style = that involves citation-numbers as superscripts. A minor divergence can occur when there is a citation adjacent to punctuation. The "bracket" styles tend to put the citation just before punctuation. Some of the "superscript" styles too would put the = citation before punctuation, but others reverse the order. Thus, for example, * British Standard 1629 gives 26 ... the sciences . * Butcher's "Copy-editing" gives [146] ... Smith, * The American Chemical Society's Style Manual gives ... previously (3). but 3 ... previously. Although the divergence is minor, the job of reversing the order of citation and punctuation (e.g., with a text-editor) may not be trivial. It may be within the scope of LaTeX's "automatically putting things into different house-styles" to try to protect the author from such work. Would I be right in thinking that: * LaTeX 3.0 isn't going to be so intelligent that it can automatically take "... \numcite{...}; ..." or "... ;\numcite{...} ..." as input and (depending on the house-style) produce ... [23]; ... with the number before punctuation, or 23 ... ; ... with the number after punctuation * Therefore, it might be worth having syntax such as \numcite[punctuation]{citekey} that can be used as \numcite[;]{citekey} \numcite[,]{citekey} \numcite[:]{citekey} \numcite[.]{citekey} and, depending on the style-file, will place the punctuation = immediately before or immediately after the citation-number? I think that this only affects "reference by number", where there may be different "order of citation and punctuation" styles depending on = whether brackets or superscripts are used (and house-style). Author-date people won't have the problem. "Short form" people will tend to go ... ;\footnote{ ... } so will naturally get "number after punctuation" anyway. David Rhead JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.469F570C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Reference-by-number scheme: order of punctuation & = number

Certain journals that use the reference-by-number = scheme of citation have a
style that involves citation-numbers in = brackets.  Others have a style that
involves citation-numbers as superscripts.

A minor divergence can occur when there is a citation = adjacent to
punctuation.  The "bracket" styles = tend to put the citation just before
punctuation.  Some of the = "superscript" styles too would put the citation
before punctuation, but others reverse the = order.  Thus, for example,
* British Standard 1629 gives
          &nbs= p;       26
  ... the sciences  .
* Butcher's "Copy-editing" gives
          &nbs= p; [146]
  ... Smith,
* The American Chemical Society's Style Manual = gives
  ... previously (3).
  but
          &nbs= p;      3
  ... previously.
Although the divergence is minor, the job of = reversing the order of
citation and punctuation (e.g., with a text-editor) = may not be trivial.
It may be within the scope of LaTeX's = "automatically putting things into
different house-styles" to try to protect the = author from such work.

Would I be right in thinking that:
*  LaTeX 3.0 isn't going to be so intelligent = that it can automatically
   take "... \numcite{...}; ..." = or "... ;\numcite{...} ..." as input
   and (depending on the house-style) = produce
        ... [23]; = ...
   with the number before punctuation, = or
          &nbs= p;  23
        ... = ;   ...
   with the number after punctuation
*  Therefore, it might be worth having syntax = such as
     = \numcite[punctuation]{citekey}
   that can be used as
     \numcite[;]{citekey}
     \numcite[,]{citekey}
     \numcite[:]{citekey}
     \numcite[.]{citekey}
   and, depending on the style-file, will = place the punctuation immediately
   before or immediately after the = citation-number?

I think that this only affects "reference by = number", where there may be
different "order of citation and = punctuation" styles depending on whether
brackets or superscripts are used (and = house-style).  Author-date people
won't have the problem.  "Short form" = people will tend to go
   ... ;\footnote{ ... }
so will naturally get "number after = punctuation" anyway.


David Rhead
JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme


------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.469F570C--