On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:25:42 +0100 (MET) wrote "Jean-Pierre.Chretien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So the question is only about the choice of the standard:
> - using latex in an abstract field (which does not exists in the original
> bib data structure (which knows only about note field AFAIR) or in titles
> (which I use often) imports (La)TeX inside this piece of data
> this is clearly not recommended for portability even if the output
> is much better; this must be the reason why .bib is not a standard for
> citation outside the academic world using LaTeX/LyX;
> - using on of these standards (among which a lot are proprietary AFAIK)
> needs conversion to bib or amsref, if ever possible without
> licensing.
>
> My feeling is that the most complete format must be retained, and
> its seems easy to regain portability by degrading the latex constructs
> by postfiltering. For this particular point, I would say that the .bib
> file is a de facto standard from which others should be built,
> and I think that for once, it's up to "others".
Here is the point where we need a decision:
+ From my browsing of the amsref-doc I learned that it is even more
complete (offers more fields and types (e.g. lectures, artwork,
web-documents) than bibtex. Also, LaTeX markup in amsref would not be a
mix of two languages in one database (as amsref is LaTeX as well).
- amsref is very new and not widely used.
(the .bib file is a de facto standard)
The question is: Do we like to support amsref in LyX?
(I don't think LyX is the right program to maintain a database, even if it
is in LaTeX, but the question is whether LyX could be made supporting
citations with amsref in its WYSIWYM-style.)
May be the decision should be postponed until the impact of amsref becomes
clear (OTOH, a nice LyX support would be boost the use of amsref and I would
write a "pyreferencer").
GM
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
