On 22.05.2008, at 23:42, Christiaan Hofman wrote: > >> This may not be a bad idea in general, seeing as different BibTeX >> replacement systems that rely on the same format but different or >> expanded fields and types could be more easily set. >> >> -AHM >> > > But are there many different systems? So is there another effective > standard apart from bibtex and biblatex?
Many bibtex style bring their own fields; jurabib for example brought quite a lot of new fields. I'm sure other styles do as well. > And how much of a standard is > biblatex ATM? Biblatex is considered stable; maybe Philipp will add new types/field in later releases, but the current ones are here to stay. > Perhaps we could add an easy choice for either of these > two default settings (with some custom stuff thrown in, as is also > currently the case), and leave other settings to the user, in the > Advanced section of the prefs. I think that could cover it for most > users, while allowing the current flexibility for advanced users. That sounds like a good idea to me. simon -- Simon Spiegel Steinhaldenstr. 50 8002 Zürich Telephon: ++41 44 451 5334 Mobophon: ++41 76 459 60 39 http://www.simifilm.ch „I have never been certain that the moral of the Icarus myth is, as is generally accepted, 'don't fly too high', or whether it might also be thought of as: 'forget about the wax and feathers, and do a better job on the wings.“ Stanley Kubrick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
