On Jan 15, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Florian Schlichting wrote:
No, I think we should stick to a "Text before" and "Text after" field PER SELECTED CITATION KEY (in the GUI) and not standardize the (myriad) ways in which to refer to and comment on citations (or who is misunderstanding whom now?)
I don't have a really strong opinion as yet. However, "see" and "see also" references are really common not just in citations, but in all manner of reference linking. TEI actually has structures for this. Just because BibTeX and Endnote don't do it doesn't mean we shouldn't at least consider it.
One of the problems with the free text approach is that it actually becomes more complicated in some ways. For example, if we explicitly support "see" and "see also" linking, it means that grouping takes it into account. So, you automatically get (Doe, 1999, 2000; see also Jones 1998; Smith 2000).
The last two references are "see also" references. If you say all captioning is free text, then you're left with the problem of how to handle text associated with groups.
I don't really like the way endnote does this, that you have to do two separate steps (first insert, then edit the citation) to perform this very basic formatting - it should all be in the same initial window.
Perhaps it would still be feasible, however, to dispense with the window altogether, and just use direct editing and contextual menus? I think it's worth considering at least.
Also, endnote does apparently not offer the possibility to leave off brackets entirely (for example if you're already inside brackets, writing more extensive text)
Am not quite following here. What do you have in mind?
Bruce
PS - Yes, the list stuff is flakey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
