Hans,
Sorting simply by year (or, rather, year then author then title ...)
could be useful. Take, for example, a pluriannual report having many
references. One might wish to display a list of publications by year.
Should this be selected using "sorttype=year"?
Another possible syntax could be
sorttype={author,year,title,page}
and this would be the default for APA.
Of course, the other common sorting is "sorttype=cite".
Furthermore,
sorttype={year,author,title,page}
would be another variant, and I can even imagine using:
sorttype={journal,volume,number,page}
or
sorttype={publisher,year,title}
and I am sure that users may need something totally unanticipated.
The change from the present is that "sortype=author" implies
{author,year,title,page}. I suppose that it could default to this order
if no other order is specified. Just like "sorttype=year" could default
to something sane like {year,author,title,page} unless a different
order is explicitly given, etc.
A subtlety is how to handle missing fields, say in a mixture of
articles and books where articles have journal titles (journal) and
article titles (title) and books have book titles (title). Should
missing journal fields (books) come before or after articles or should
title then be taken into account, as in {journal|title}? Do we need to
allow such logic?
We can continue to discuss this with Thomas and Luigi but I mention it
here on the mailing list as Flavien Lambert brought up the question.
Alan
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:52:15 +0200
Hans Hagen <pra...@wxs.nl> wrote:
> On 7/16/2014 11:31 AM, Flavien Lambert wrote:
> > The sort by author is perfect.
>
> fyi, sorting authors is kind of complex as we need to take all name
> elements into account (initials, firstnames, surnames, vons,
> juniors); of course there can be multiple authors; add to the extra
> axes year journal, title and page
>
> the torture test is a list with 400K author specifications (taken
> from a bunch of bib databases) which eventually produces a 5500 page
> document
>
> in practice, certainly when we have smaller databases, load time can
> be neglected (here it is .4 sec luatex vs .3 sec luajittex); sort
> preparation and processing of that bunch takes 35 sec for luatex and
> 19 sec for luajittex but of course for normal cases you won't even
> noticed it .. bib databases with 400K entries are probably not used
> often
>
> (i have no clue if bibtex can handle these numbers)
>
> > Thanks,
> > F.
> >
> > On 16 Jul 2014 17:16, "Hans Hagen" <pra...@wxs.nl
> > <mailto:pra...@wxs.nl>> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/16/2014 10:10 AM, Flavien Lambert wrote:
> >
> > Great! Thanks a lot!
> >
> > And concerning sorting by date?
> >
> >
> > sorttype=author
> >
> > sorts by author,year,journal,title,page
> >
> > so what do you mean with 'by year'
> >
> > Hans
--
Alan Braslau
CEA DSM-IRAMIS-SPEC
CNRS URA 2464
Orme des Merisiers
91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex FRANCE
tel: +33 1 69 08 73 15
fax: +33 1 69 08 87 86
mailto:alan.bras...@cea.fr
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
