On Aug 5, 2011, at 07:37, Simon Spiegel wrote: > On 05.08.2011, at 16:26, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > >> Unless you're a TeXpert, those look worse than .bst files. > > Well, no, for two reasons: > > - Biblatex is extensively documented (contrary to the .bst format). Actually, > I'd say that biblatex's excellent documentation is one of its majors > strengths.
The bst language is documented in btxhax.pdf and btxbst.doc. Granted, it's shorter than the 215 pages of biblatex.pdf, but that's not necessarily bad... > - Understanding how the styles work and what do you have to change is > actually doable with average LaTeX skills (contrary to the .bst format. The > .bst is very obscure and it's logic has absolutely nothing to do with LaTeX). I guess that depends on your idea of "average" LaTeX skills; I've written and modified document classes, so I'm not an absolute newbie, but the apa.bbx file I looked at is less comprehensible to me than a .bst file. I can believe that biblatex makes more things possible, but I think the argument that it's simpler or easier is completely misguided. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts. Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies. Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save! http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1 _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
