IMO such behaviour is somehow close to correct. LyX do not support
BibLaTeX officially, so if it cannot handle UTF .bib files, it is
compatible with BibTeX.
Manveru, you and Jurgen are right. But I wonder WHY LyX 1.6.0 could read my
.bib file while 1.6.1 not.
Anyway, in order to use
Piero Faustini wrote:
Manveru, you and Jurgen are right. But I wonder WHY LyX 1.6.0 could read my
.bib file while 1.6.1 not.
Is the bib-file 100% identical? Didn't you add some citations to the document
in the meantime?
Anyway, in order to use BibLaTeX, LyX should
just read only the bibtex
IMO such behaviour is somehow close to correct. LyX do not support
BibLaTeX officially, so if it cannot handle UTF .bib files, it is
compatible with BibTeX.
Manveru, you and Jurgen are right. But I wonder WHY LyX 1.6.0 could read my
.bib file while 1.6.1 not.
Anyway, in order to use
Piero Faustini wrote:
Manveru, you and Jurgen are right. But I wonder WHY LyX 1.6.0 could read my
.bib file while 1.6.1 not.
Is the bib-file 100% identical? Didn't you add some citations to the document
in the meantime?
Anyway, in order to use BibLaTeX, LyX should
just read only the bibtex
> IMO such behaviour is somehow close to correct. LyX do not support
> BibLaTeX officially, so if it cannot handle UTF .bib files, it is
> compatible with BibTeX.
Manveru, you and Jurgen are right. But I wonder WHY LyX 1.6.0 could read my
.bib file while 1.6.1 not.
Anyway, in order to
Piero Faustini wrote:
> Manveru, you and Jurgen are right. But I wonder WHY LyX 1.6.0 could read my
> .bib file while 1.6.1 not.
Is the bib-file 100% identical? Didn't you add some citations to the document
in the meantime?
> Anyway, in order to use BibLaTeX, LyX should
> just read only the
