References: <201805042236.w44MaTV0010317@freefriends.org>
Message-ID:  <201805050043.w450h3e8014472@bilbo.localnet>
Date:         Fri, 4 May 2018 17:43:03 -0700
Reply-To:     Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender:       Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From:         Boris Veytsman <borisv@LK.NET>
Subject: Re: bibtex futures: url, doi, ?
To:           LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <201805042236.w44MaTV0010317@freefriends.org> (message from Karl
              Berry on Fri, 4 May 2018 22:36:29 GMT)
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

KB> Date:         Fri, 4 May 2018 22:36:29 GMT
KB> From:         Karl Berry <karl@FREEFRIENDS.ORG>

KB> Hello LaTeX folk. Oren (Patashnik) has expressed a desire to do
KB> "whatever seems useful" (given that compatibility is paramount) with a
KB> future BibTeX release -- not that anything is going to happen quickly,
KB> but he wanted to start gathering information at this point.

KB> For instance, clearly it would be nice to have a url field in the base
KB> styles. But, what to do in the .bbl file? Assume \url{...} works? But
KB> there have been different versions over the years and they don't all
KB> accept the same thing, e.g., bare "#" and "%" in the url, not to mention
KB> \url{...} vs. \url|...|, etc. And it induces a new dependency (to load
KB> url/hyperrref/something) on the document, though maybe that is not a big
KB> deal. Or maybe use a new macro, \btxurl, whose definition is output by
KB> bibtex itself? That doesn't sound right.

KB> A doi field is another glaring candidate. But there there isn't even a
KB> commonly-available \doi command in the first place. So what to do? \btxdoi?

KB> Maybe BibTeX could provide a core file bibtex.sty which is (implicitly?,
KB> if available) loaded to define all such macros, probably mostly by
KB> loading other packages? Sounds fraught with possible problems, but I
KB> guess it's the most general solution.

I think the de-facto standard for fields like url and doi is natbib.
I am not saying all bibtex-based packages must use natbib (although my
packages certainly do), but I think any interface should at least try
to be natbib compatible

-- 
Good luck

-Boris

To teach is to learn twice.
		-- Joseph Joubert