> IMHO, endnotes are good only for substantial disgression from the > main text (aka Appendices), and it is still questionable, whether > just another new chapter (paragraph) would not do better.
On the other hand, flipping back to the bibliography to locate 1999f is just as annoying. This is why I like Chicago: distinguish between full references in bib and in footnotes. First ref in footnotes is full footnote ref, for which there is a corresponding full bib ref. Subsequent foot refs abreviated (key information author and title and date), ibid never goes on for more than one page. Distinguishe between reference notes and "substantive" notes, put substantive notes at the end. The only bst (I have not looked much) that seems to do something like this is Jurabib. But Chicago style (it exists for Jurabib because I emailed the guy and asked for it) is a hack of Jurabib, and so there is lots that a proper Chicago style should do that isn't supported. Moreover, the jchicago style inherits lots of the defaults from Jurabib, so you can't make a proper Chicago format from it without messing with lots of options in the config file. My dream is still a fully functional Chicago style, which achicago promised to be. But work on that seems to have stopped quite a while ago. This is my next summer project: learn how to write a bst and complementary sty. (=buy a copy of Lamport), write a fully functional (hahaha) chicago style in a couple of months (hahahaha).
