On Oct 13, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
pt wrote:
I thought I had an idea of how it might work with in-text citations
that were essentially tokens referencing a bibliographic data store,
but the psuedo code below seems to imply that the full bibliographic
record would be in the citation. Or am I misreading it?
The plan has been that citations just become pointers to external
bibliographic records; "external" in relation to content.xml, but
still in the file wrapper. So the bibliographic store would be
internal to the file. Otherwise the model is the same as the
current DocBook processing, with the sole difference that the
results of the transformation need to get inserted back into the
citation elements. This is what the glue would do; collect the
citations, an use them in conjunction with the bib data to run the
file, and insert the results back.
That doesn't mean there isn't a general bibliographic database too.
It's just that when one inserts a citation in a document, one is
both adding the pointer, and the bibliographic record.
In the past, we had thought that would be an optional relationship;
that a user could choose to embed, or not. I think that's not a
good idea for a variety of reasons, and that it should be mandatory.
In general I think it is an excellent idea to embed. However if I
change details in my bibliography manager (ie the master database
record) would that cascade to inserted citations, or would that
cascade be optional?
One option would be to keep the database linkage in the record and at
'styling' time (ie when the record is converted to text) to allow it
to hit the database if possible and look for changes, then prompt the
user if they want to have those changes apply to the current citation.
--J
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
