I have been working with biblatex now for over a year. It is exceptionally complex. It might actually be too complex to automate. I can't even think up a decent UI to present the hundreds of different configuration options, and there are probably even more than I use. The documentation alone is several hundred pages.
The problem is that bibliogrophy generation is very very complicated. It doesn't sound like it should be until you think about the dozens---possibly hundreds---of different ways of doing it. Each journal has their own unique way. Nothing is standard. There are regional differences between the US and the EU. There are also no good defaults, even regionally. From a technical perspective (I thought a lot about this), it is very challenging. It also has only 1 major benefit and that is that biblatex handles unicode flawlessly. Apart from that, I don't think it is that unreasonable to assume that if you are using biblatex and biber that you are a bit more advanced. You might not be a power user but you are also not just a button presser either. BTW, to the person who stated that linux handles paths incorrectly, no. Just no. It doesn't. Windows handles paths incorrectly because everything is capitalized thanks to really epically bad programming in the days of Dos. Unix has always had case specific paths and this is way it should be. It just means you, as the end user, need to be a bit careful. ~Ben On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:13 AM, PhilipPirrip <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/02/2015 03:35 AM, Michael Berger wrote: > >> I hope some good guys will attend to this making the usage of biblatex >> in LyX as easy as that of bibtex. >> > > > At least as a hack in the current code that will do this very same thing > (biblatex with natbib compatibility) when biber is selected as a processor. > Wishful thinking... :) > > >
