> On 11 Aug 2016, at 10:18, Taco Hoekwater <t...@elvenkind.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Working on the next issue of the CG Journal, I finally had a good reason to
> look at the new bibliography code. Even with a big manual, it was still a bit
> of challenge.
>
> The article I was working on was written for mkii, and came with a prebuilt
> .bbl file for that (but not with the original .bib files). The original
> databases look like they were created for latex so there were some problems
> with embedded commands and it being 8-bit (ISO-latin), but that was to be
> expected.
>
> Some other problems seems to be more related to differences between the mkii
> and the mkiv bibliography code.
>
> First question: is there a ‘default’ or ‘standard’ dataset, or not? If so, is
> it named ‘default’ or ‘standard’? The bit of code on the wiki and the actual
> manual seem to disagree on that. My current solution looks like this:
>
>
> \usebtxdataset[h-all-forced.bbl]
> \usebtxdefinitions[aps]
> \setupbtxrendering[alternative=aps]
> …
> \placelistofpublications[criterium=text]
>
> That works, but almost all the documentation uses either [default] or
> [standard].
>
> Second question: It appears I need both \usebtxdefinitions and
> \setupbtxrendering, which surprised me. I understand that right now, there is
> only ‘apa’ and ‘aps’, but it seems neither are preloaded? Without the
> \usebtxdefinitions, I did get a list of publications, but with horrible
> formatting, especially for ‘manual’ and ‘inproceedings’.
>
> Contrary to what the manual says, \cite[key] does not seem to work. however,
> \citation[key] does. So, in the preamble I now have
>
> \let\cite\citation
>
> but isn’t it weird that I needed that?
>
>
> More importantly (read: "more timeconsuming-ly"), there are some differences
> in the .bbl processing compared to mkii, which is not great. So far, I found
> this:
>
> * mkii used \arttitle in some spots. To be exact: in ‘article’,
> ‘incollection’, and ‘inproceedings’ entries. I changed the ones in ‘article'
> to \title inside the .bll to get these to work.
>
> * That fixed ‘article’s, but ‘inproceedings’ and ‘incollection’ are broken,
> because these *also* has an actual \title for the complete
> proceedings/collection, and I do not know how to make the module display both
> titles. Please help, because I definitely need the ‘inproceedings’ one to
> work properly! I now get formatted output like this:
>
> [18] J.-M. Hufflen, Proc. 6th ConTEXt Meeting
> & EuroTEX 2012 (2012).
>
> (actually twice the exact same entry, because there were two articles by J-M
> in that one proceedings). Do I need \booktitle?
> Not that I mind, but it is a little odd in the sense that a ‘collection’ has
> a title, but it is not really a ‘book title’, it is a ‘collection title’ (and
> likewise for 'proceedings’) ;)
>
> * In mkii, the bbl uses e.h. \artauthor[]{John}[J.]{}{Doe}. The problem I
> have there is that the new biblio code (at least the ‘aps’ version) inserts
> dots after the initials in the output list, So I end up with “J.. Doe”. I
> like the ‘adding a dot’ in principle, but if it stays, then it should
> definitely be conditional on whether or not the initials already have one.
> Having to edit the datafile the fix the double dot was quite uncomfortable.
>
> * I had to change the .bbl, replacing all \pubyear with \year. The extra
> \pub… prefix was there because of conflicts with the primitive \year in mkii
> and it makes sense to not require it any more in mkiv, but nevertheless it
> would be helpful if \pubyear could be used as an alias to \year. Not the
> hardest change though, it was a single global replace in the bbl, so a low
> priority request.
>
> * The new ‘aps’ style does not print the publisher name for ‘book’ (at least,
> I probably missed others). I assume this is because of the ‘not quite ready
> yet’ state of new biblio code, but I hope that will be fixed at some point.
> And there are probably a few other (less common) fields still missing,
> right?. Probably because the .bbl uses e.g. \pubname, not ‘\publisher’? I
> don’t want to go looking for these missing fields just now, but I would be
> willing to do at some later date.
>
>
> Finally: the manual says there are various ‘required fields’ for the entry
> types. That is great, but could there be some (optional) visual feedback in
> the formatted list if such a required field is in fact missing?
> traditionally, that would a black square, but a bold *publisher missing*
> would be very useful.
>
> That’s it for now. Sorry about the long list of complaints. I do appreciate
> the amount of work needed to get bibliographies working even without having
> to worry about backward compatibility, but I feel it is important that, if
> there is supposed to be backward compatibility, that it ten be as close to
> perfect as technically possible. Even if it is a bit of pain.
>
>
Addendum: It seems \cite (aka \citation) does not work inside footnotes? I get
output like this:
… A good introduction to this scripting language is [<wall-etc2000>].
And the entry does not appear in the publication list.?!
Best wishes,
Taco
_______________________________________________
dev-context mailing list
dev-context@ntg.nl
https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/dev-context
