On 2017-08-12 22:30, Alan Braslau wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:32:17 -0400
Rik Kabel <cont...@rik.users.panix.com> wrote:

I noticed that in bibliographies, page indexing combines runs of two
or more pages (pp. 150­–151), as does page number compression in
registers, while it takes three or more numbered citations to cause a
similar collapse (per the MKIV-Publications manual, page 38, I do not
have an example) for citation number references.

Is there a way to change such compression minimums so that they can
be made consistent?
What seems more logical to you?
pp 150,151 or pp 150-151 - of course pp 150-152 makes perfect sense.
[2,3] or [2-3] - of course [2-4] also makes sense.

I prefer the first choices. ConTeXt registers do the second, and I do
not know what led to that choice and if Hans would like to change it
(or even make this a parameter).


I am looking for consistency.

For page references, the bibliography subsystem gives:

 * pp. 1–2
 * pp. 1–3
 * p. 1 and p. 3

and numeric citations apparently produce:

 * [1,2]
 * [1–3]
 * [1,3]

while the index registers give:

 * 1–2
 * 1–3
 * 1, 3

Why is the ‘and’ needed in the bibliography page reference? One could also ask why the ‘p.’ and ‘pp.’, but in the more verbose setting of a bibliography, I can live with them.

As for the choice of two or more over three or more for compression, I can see arguments for each. A default and the ability to change it seems best, especially for bibliographic entries where publishers have overriding standards.



If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the 

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net

Reply via email to