Message-ID:  <98111016021016@man.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:02:10 GMT
From: Phillip Helbig <helbig@MAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: frontmatter was: What is "base" LaTeX
Status: R

> > but one of the problems with BibTeX is the lack of structure in an
> > entry! that model will not satisfy the need to express the fact that
> > there are 10 authors; 4 are are from institution B, 3 from institution
> > C; author 9 is at institution B and D; author 10 is at instutition D,
> > but currently on leave at A; author 10 is deceased. author 7 is the
> > corresponding author.
>
> I'd like to add two more problems with this idea:
>
> o It requires coordination of external data structions between
>   the various authors as well as between authors and publisher, if
>   they all want to get the same printed output.  Any solution which
>   does not require the sending of additional files would be much
>   preferred.

Yes.  However, why not send additional files?  Not the equivalent of the
.bib, but the equivalent of the .blg.  This can be frozen even after the
author has updated his equivalent of .bib.  Or make it so that a TRIVIAL
change (as including the .blg in the .tex file) avoids sending extra
files.  However, LaTeX2e introduced a standard way to send additional
files.  So I don't see this as a problem since there are many solutions.

> o Two papers by the same author with the same publisher which are to
>   appear at the same time may carry different addresses, because the
>   papers were written at different institutions and should
>   carry as the main address the address of the institution at which
>   the work was performed.  This can not easily accomodated in a
>   BibTeX-like solution.

This is something which must be dealt with regardless of what scheme one
uses.

> David Carlisle wrote:
> > The hard part is to get an input syntax that can cope with these type of
> > requirements and at the same time is not impossibly complicated to use
> > on a simple two-authors-at-one-institution paper.
>
> I can actually see that such a model may make sense when it comes to
> 200 authors per paper...  what about furthering the analogy with
> BibTeX: Nothing prevents me from inserting an explicit thebibliography
> environment, which is certainly preferred for trivial bibliographies.

As above, the two should be compatible.

> Now if one can come up with a hidden, well-defined data-structure for
> frontmatter items, then one could come up with the following scheme:


--
Phillip Helbig                          Email ......... p.helbig@jb.man.ac.uk
Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories   Tel. .... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297)
Jodrell Bank                            Fax ................ +44 1477 571 618
Macclesfield                            Telex ................ 36149 JODREL G
UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL                    Web ... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/

My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester.