References: <201805042236.w44MaTV0010317@freefriends.org>
            <CAP7DCDe1M76vttVX6-yyYFcOf4caxewJsNcP61F-jHXDieWJpw@mail.gmail.com>
            <87muxd2db0.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Message-ID:  <20180507212753.GA69330@phare.normalesup.org>
Date:         Mon, 7 May 2018 23:27:53 +0200
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:         Arthur Reutenauer <arthur.reutenauer@NORMALESUP.ORG>
Subject: Re: bibtex futures: url, doi, ?
To:           LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <87muxd2db0.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 02:12:19PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Frankly, given the breathtaking pace of bibliography generators in the
> TeX world, the main surprise is that the BibTeX database format is
> supported as well as it is by a whole lot of software able to export
> records.

  The contradiction is only apparent: to produce bibliographic records,
and to use them in typesetting are two rather different things.  Since
the former is quite easy, and the latter can be very hard, it is not
that surprising that many bibliographic databases use the BibTeX format,
often next to several others (no less than 9, for my local library
services -- the majority of them actually being preformatted entries
according to some style).  If anything, the comparatively slow pace of
development of BibTeX & al. has contributed to its format becoming
standard.

	Best,

		Arthur