On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:51:33AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > There are similar issues for other fields, for instance, some original
> > BibTeX
> > entries used the LaTeX representation of the en dash (--), which I
> > converted to
> > the proper Unicode character (–), which was later replaced by the ASCII dash
> > (-) for the sake of normalisation (which is good).
>
> Good point. For me the same as above stays valid: For the moment we
> could stick to the ASCII dash in titles. If it comes to BibTeX usage we
> might consider substituting it in title strings in the BibTeX export
> after inspecting the database whether this makes sense. I would not
> consider this a real design flaw. I'm more concerned how we could
> motivate more maintainers to actually provide citation information at
> all.
I think it would make most sense to stick to BibTeX if possible in the
debian/upstream format, and further just accepting whatever different
BibTeX formats there are. The web pages however would best look
unified, so we could replace "--" by "-" on the web page, and again "-"
by "--" for the BibTeX export at http://blends.debian.net/packages-metadata/
Would something like the attached patch work at least for displaying?
Michael
Index: blendstasktools.py
===================================================================
--- blendstasktools.py (Revision 3314)
+++ blendstasktools.py (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -1486,6 +1486,8 @@
for pub in ("year", "title", "authors", "doi", "pubmed", "url", "journal", "volume", "number", "pages", "eprint" ):
if row[pub]:
+ if pub == "pages":
+ row[pub] = re.sub("--", "-", row[pub])
if not dep.properties.has_key('published'):
dep.properties['published'] = {}
if dep.properties['published'].has_key(pub):
