On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01:45:58PM +0100, Wayan wrote:
thank you. I have already used ERT, but the problem is the
citation not appears in the text. I have only use \cite{} and
\ocite{}. When I viewed as PostScript, that only show: (?mil99)
for \cite{mil99) and () for \ocite{mil99). I am using
Thank you Matej for your attention to this problem,
Have a nice day,
Wayan
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:32:12 -0500
From: Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: amsref (was: customizing natbib)
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01:45:58PM +0100, Wayan wrote:
thank you. I have already used ERT, but the problem is the
citation not appears in the text. I have only use \cite{} and
\ocite{}. When I viewed as PostScript, that only show: (?mil99)
for \cite{mil99) and () for \ocite{mil99). I am using
Thank you Matej for your attention to this problem,
Have a nice day,
Wayan
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:32:12 -0500
From: Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: amsref (was: customizing natbib)
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01:45:58PM +0100, Wayan wrote:
> thank you. I have already used ERT, but the problem is the
> citation not appears in the text. I have only use \cite{} and
> \ocite{}. When I viewed as PostScript, that only show: (?mil99)
> for \cite{mil99) and () for \ocite{mil99). I am
Thank you Matej for your attention to this problem,
Have a nice day,
Wayan
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:32:12 -0500
> From: Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: amsref (was: customizing natbib)
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 08:46:12AM +0100, Herbert Voss wrote:
it's a problem to choose a special ams package and a german
textclass.
I believe that amsrefs should be AMS-independent and that there
must be some problem with it. I did proposed to turn to
AMS-managed list with further questions.
Matej Cepl wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 08:46:12AM +0100, Herbert Voss wrote:
it's a problem to choose a special ams package and a german
textclass.
I believe that amsrefs should be AMS-independent and that there
must be some problem with it. I did proposed to turn to
AMS-managed list
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
I believe that amsrefs should be AMS-independent and that there must be
some problem with it. I did proposed to turn to AMS-managed list with
further questions.
Sorry, I did not make a reply for your suggestion. I have sent an email to
the amsrefs dev.
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 08:46:12AM +0100, Herbert Voss wrote:
it's a problem to choose a special ams package and a german
textclass.
I believe that amsrefs should be AMS-independent and that there
must be some problem with it. I did proposed to turn to
AMS-managed list with further questions.
Matej Cepl wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 08:46:12AM +0100, Herbert Voss wrote:
it's a problem to choose a special ams package and a german
textclass.
I believe that amsrefs should be AMS-independent and that there
must be some problem with it. I did proposed to turn to
AMS-managed list
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
I believe that amsrefs should be AMS-independent and that there must be
some problem with it. I did proposed to turn to AMS-managed list with
further questions.
Sorry, I did not make a reply for your suggestion. I have sent an email to
the amsrefs dev.
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 08:46:12AM +0100, Herbert Voss wrote:
> it's a problem to choose a special ams package and a german
> textclass.
I believe that amsrefs should be AMS-independent and that there
must be some problem with it. I did proposed to turn to
AMS-managed list with further
Matej Cepl wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 08:46:12AM +0100, Herbert Voss wrote:
>
>>it's a problem to choose a special ams package and a german
>>textclass.
>>
>
> I believe that amsrefs should be AMS-independent and that there
> must be some problem with it. I did proposed to turn to
>
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
> I believe that amsrefs should be AMS-independent and that there must be
> some problem with it. I did proposed to turn to AMS-managed list with
> further questions.
Sorry, I did not make a reply for your suggestion. I have sent an email to
the amsrefs
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:51:44 +0100 (MET) wrote Jean-Pierre.Chretien
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You may use the bib record structure to declare more fields than
what is actually needed by the bst files (I personnaly used for a while
bib records for address database indexing with bibindex), so the
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Guenter Milde wrote:
I totally agree. My feature request was to enable the InsertCitation
dialog to work with a amsref *.ltb database as well as with a *.bib, showing
the available keys and their content.
Also, amsref has a more helpfull error-reporting, so that the
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:38:41 +0100 (MET) wrote Wayan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How can we make a different between \cite{} and \ocite{} in the pop-up
menu Citation. I haven't seen it, or should we use manually with ERT
command?
Just now (1.1.6fix3), the popup only supports \cite, all other
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Guenter Milde wrote:
Just now (1.1.6fix3), the popup only supports \cite, all other citations
need ERT. (if you only need one different command, you can redefine
\cite in the preamble)
thank you. I have already used ERT, but the problem is the citation not
appears in
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01:45:58PM +0100, Wayan wrote:
thank you. I have already used ERT, but the problem is the citation not
appears in the text. I have only use \cite{} and \ocite{}. When I viewed
as PostScript, that only show: (?mil99) for \cite{mil99) and () for
\ocite{mil99). I am using
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
Could you send short example file, please?
Thank you for rapid respons. I attaced an zip file
which consist of example.lyx, example.pdf and
myref.bib.
TIA,
Wayan
example.zip
Description: example
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 03:25:11AM +0100, Wayan wrote:
Could you send short example file, please?
Thank you for rapid respons. I attaced an zip file
which consist of example.lyx, example.pdf and
myref.bib.
I am clueless. I have my paper tonight, so I cannot spent much
time with that, but
Wayan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
Could you send short example file, please?
Thank you for rapid respons. I attaced an zip file
which consist of example.lyx, example.pdf and
myref.bib.
don't use package hyperref. Delete it from
preamble and try again. At least load
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Herbert Voss wrote:
don't use package hyperref. Delete it from
preamble and try again. At least load hyperref at
very last package.
Thank you for your respons. Now the \cite{} command is right,
but the \ocite{} command is still false. The \ocite{} command
do not make a
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Wayan wrote:
don't use package hyperref. Delete it from
preamble and try again. At least load hyperref at
very last package.
Thank you for your respons. Now the \cite{} command is right,
but the \ocite{} command is still false. The \ocite{} command
do not make a
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:51:44 +0100 (MET) wrote Jean-Pierre.Chretien
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You may use the bib record structure to declare more fields than
what is actually needed by the bst files (I personnaly used for a while
bib records for address database indexing with bibindex), so the
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Guenter Milde wrote:
I totally agree. My feature request was to enable the InsertCitation
dialog to work with a amsref *.ltb database as well as with a *.bib, showing
the available keys and their content.
Also, amsref has a more helpfull error-reporting, so that the
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:38:41 +0100 (MET) wrote Wayan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How can we make a different between \cite{} and \ocite{} in the pop-up
menu Citation. I haven't seen it, or should we use manually with ERT
command?
Just now (1.1.6fix3), the popup only supports \cite, all other
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Guenter Milde wrote:
Just now (1.1.6fix3), the popup only supports \cite, all other citations
need ERT. (if you only need one different command, you can redefine
\cite in the preamble)
thank you. I have already used ERT, but the problem is the citation not
appears in
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01:45:58PM +0100, Wayan wrote:
thank you. I have already used ERT, but the problem is the citation not
appears in the text. I have only use \cite{} and \ocite{}. When I viewed
as PostScript, that only show: (?mil99) for \cite{mil99) and () for
\ocite{mil99). I am using
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
Could you send short example file, please?
Thank you for rapid respons. I attaced an zip file
which consist of example.lyx, example.pdf and
myref.bib.
TIA,
Wayan
example.zip
Description: example
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 03:25:11AM +0100, Wayan wrote:
Could you send short example file, please?
Thank you for rapid respons. I attaced an zip file
which consist of example.lyx, example.pdf and
myref.bib.
I am clueless. I have my paper tonight, so I cannot spent much
time with that, but
Wayan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
Could you send short example file, please?
Thank you for rapid respons. I attaced an zip file
which consist of example.lyx, example.pdf and
myref.bib.
don't use package hyperref. Delete it from
preamble and try again. At least load
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Herbert Voss wrote:
don't use package hyperref. Delete it from
preamble and try again. At least load hyperref at
very last package.
Thank you for your respons. Now the \cite{} command is right,
but the \ocite{} command is still false. The \ocite{} command
do not make a
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Wayan wrote:
don't use package hyperref. Delete it from
preamble and try again. At least load hyperref at
very last package.
Thank you for your respons. Now the \cite{} command is right,
but the \ocite{} command is still false. The \ocite{} command
do not make a
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:51:44 +0100 (MET) wrote "Jean-Pierre.Chretien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You may use the bib record structure to declare more fields than
> what is actually needed by the bst files (I personnaly used for a while
> bib records for address database indexing with bibindex),
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Guenter Milde wrote:
> I totally agree. My feature request was to enable the >Insert>Citation
> dialog to work with a amsref *.ltb database as well as with a *.bib, showing
> the available keys and their content.
>
> Also, amsref has a more helpfull error-reporting, so that
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:38:41 +0100 (MET) wrote Wayan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> How can we make a different between \cite{} and \ocite{} in the pop-up
> menu Citation. I haven't seen it, or should we use manually with ERT
> command?
Just now (1.1.6fix3), the popup only supports \cite, all other
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Guenter Milde wrote:
> Just now (1.1.6fix3), the popup only supports \cite, all other citations
> need ERT. (if you only need one different command, you can redefine
> \cite in the preamble)
thank you. I have already used ERT, but the problem is the citation not
appears in
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01:45:58PM +0100, Wayan wrote:
> thank you. I have already used ERT, but the problem is the citation not
> appears in the text. I have only use \cite{} and \ocite{}. When I viewed
> as PostScript, that only show: (?mil99) for \cite{mil99) and () for
> \ocite{mil99). I am
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Could you send short example file, please?
Thank you for rapid respons. I attaced an zip file
which consist of example.lyx, example.pdf and
myref.bib.
TIA,
Wayan
example.zip
Description: example
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 03:25:11AM +0100, Wayan wrote:
> > Could you send short example file, please?
>
> Thank you for rapid respons. I attaced an zip file
> which consist of example.lyx, example.pdf and
> myref.bib.
I am clueless. I have my paper tonight, so I cannot spent much
time with
Wayan wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
>
>
>>Could you send short example file, please?
>>
>
> Thank you for rapid respons. I attaced an zip file
> which consist of example.lyx, example.pdf and
> myref.bib.
don't use package hyperref. Delete it from
preamble and try again. At
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Herbert Voss wrote:
> don't use package hyperref. Delete it from
> preamble and try again. At least load hyperref at
> very last package.
Thank you for your respons. Now the \cite{} command is right,
but the \ocite{} command is still false. The \ocite{} command
do not make
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Wayan wrote:
> > don't use package hyperref. Delete it from
> > preamble and try again. At least load hyperref at
> > very last package.
>
> Thank you for your respons. Now the \cite{} command is right,
> but the \ocite{} command is still false. The \ocite{} command
> do not
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:08:11 +0100 (CET)
From: Guenter Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: customizing natbib
To: Jean-Pierre.Chretien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:08:07 +0100 (MET) wrote Jean-Pierre.Chretien
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I just checked out this website. It seems
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
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:30:39 +0100 (CET)
From: Guenter Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: Re: customizing natbib
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:51:44AM, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
The main point is to avoid a dialect of bib records in amsref,
that is to keep with the existing fields for the same
information.
Well, now we are again in the shooting in the foot question. I
think, that it should be allowed
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:47:44 -0500
From: Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: Re: customizing natbib
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:51:44AM, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
The main point is to avoid a dialect of bib records in amsref,
that is to keep
Guenter Milde wrote:
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
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:25:42AM, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
In fact, I wanted to stress the fact that database typing
inside documents (which is a current practice) should be
avoided because a bibliography tag is by definition an piece of
data which should be written once correctly
Dear all,
I have searched with this key (customizing natbib) on the
mailing-list archive, Dekel have suggested to use amsrefs
for easy customizeable bibliography. Could you please help
me how can I do it with LyX. I would like to write biblio-
graphy like following,
nama, year. title. journal
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:08:11 +0100 (CET)
From: Guenter Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: customizing natbib
To: Jean-Pierre.Chretien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:08:07 +0100 (MET) wrote Jean-Pierre.Chretien
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I just checked out this website. It seems
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
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:30:39 +0100 (CET)
From: Guenter Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: Re: customizing natbib
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:51:44AM, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
The main point is to avoid a dialect of bib records in amsref,
that is to keep with the existing fields for the same
information.
Well, now we are again in the shooting in the foot question. I
think, that it should be allowed
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:47:44 -0500
From: Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: Re: customizing natbib
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:51:44AM, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
The main point is to avoid a dialect of bib records in amsref,
that is to keep
Guenter Milde wrote:
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
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:25:42AM, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
In fact, I wanted to stress the fact that database typing
inside documents (which is a current practice) should be
avoided because a bibliography tag is by definition an piece of
data which should be written once correctly
Dear all,
I have searched with this key (customizing natbib) on the
mailing-list archive, Dekel have suggested to use amsrefs
for easy customizeable bibliography. Could you please help
me how can I do it with LyX. I would like to write biblio-
graphy like following,
nama, year. title. journal
>>Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:08:11 +0100 (CET)
>>From: Guenter Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: Re: customizing natbib
>>To: "Jean-Pierre.Chretien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:08:07 +0100 (MET) wrote &quo
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
>>Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:30:39 +0100 (CET)
>>From: Guenter Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: Re: Re: customizing natbib
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:25:42 +0100 (MET) wrote "Jean-Pierre.Chretien"
<[
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:51:44AM, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
> The main point is to avoid a dialect of bib records in amsref,
> that is to keep with the existing fields for the same
> information.
Well, now we are again in the shooting in the foot question. I
think, that it should be allowed
>>Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:47:44 -0500
>>From: Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: Re: Re: customizing natbib
>>
>>On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:51:44AM, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
>>> The main p
Guenter Milde wrote:
> 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
>
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:25:42AM, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
> In fact, I wanted to stress the fact that database typing
> inside documents (which is a current practice) should be
> avoided because a bibliography tag is by definition an piece of
> data which should be written once correctly
Dear all,
I have searched with this key (customizing natbib) on the
mailing-list archive, Dekel have suggested to use amsrefs
for easy customizeable bibliography. Could you please help
me how can I do it with LyX. I would like to write biblio-
graphy like following,
nama, year. title. journal
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:48:54PM -0500, Paul Tremblay wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:38:09PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote:
another one is to throw bibtex out of the window and use amsrefs
(on www.ams.org). It does not do any such ugly things.
I just checked out this website. It seems like
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:22:43 -0500
From: Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: customizing natbib
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:48:54PM -0500, Paul Tremblay wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:38:09PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote:
another one is to throw bibtex out
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:48:54PM -0500, Paul Tremblay wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:38:09PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote:
another one is to throw bibtex out of the window and use amsrefs
(on www.ams.org). It does not do any such ugly things.
I just checked out this website. It seems like
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:22:43 -0500
From: Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: customizing natbib
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:48:54PM -0500, Paul Tremblay wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:38:09PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote:
another one is to throw bibtex out
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:48:54PM -0500, Paul Tremblay wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:38:09PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote:
> > another one is to throw bibtex out of the window and use amsrefs
> > (on www.ams.org). It does not do any such ugly things.
>
> I just checked out this website. It
>>Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:22:43 -0500
>>From: Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: customizing natbib
>>
>>On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:48:54PM -0500, Paul Tremblay wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:38:09PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote:
another one is to throw bibtex out of the window and use amsrefs
(on www.ams.org). It does not do any such ugly things.
I just checked out this website. It seems like the amsrefs
package is meant for publishing mathmatical
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:38:09PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote:
another one is to throw bibtex out of the window and use amsrefs
(on www.ams.org). It does not do any such ugly things.
I just checked out this website. It seems like the amsrefs
package is meant for publishing mathmatical
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:38:09PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote:
>
> another one is to throw bibtex out of the window and use amsrefs
> (on www.ams.org). It does not do any such ugly things.
>
I just checked out this website. It seems like the amsrefs
package is meant for publishing mathmatical
in the bibtex file *.bib
...
title = {{E}ltern und {K}inder}
...
Bibtex will leave all capitalizations in {} unchanged.
Er, I may be missing something here, but if you create a .bst file using
makebst, part of the custbib package, you are given the option of using
either a
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:03:23AM +0100, Guenter Milde wrote:
This is the way most bibtex styles work (and I learned, it is
the normal way it is done in English). As this is a problem
with German titles (where you need to keep the Capitalization
of Nouns) all German bibtexers know the
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:38:09 -0500 wrote Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
another one is to throw bibtex out of the window and use amsrefs
(on www.ams.org). It does not do any such ugly things.
I had a (admittedly very quick) view at the amsrefs homepage --- looks very
promising. I also read
in the bibtex file *.bib
...
title = {{E}ltern und {K}inder}
...
Bibtex will leave all capitalizations in {} unchanged.
Er, I may be missing something here, but if you create a .bst file using
makebst, part of the custbib package, you are given the option of using
either a
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:03:23AM +0100, Guenter Milde wrote:
This is the way most bibtex styles work (and I learned, it is
the normal way it is done in English). As this is a problem
with German titles (where you need to keep the Capitalization
of Nouns) all German bibtexers know the
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:38:09 -0500 wrote Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
another one is to throw bibtex out of the window and use amsrefs
(on www.ams.org). It does not do any such ugly things.
I had a (admittedly very quick) view at the amsrefs homepage --- looks very
promising. I also read
> in the bibtex file *.bib
> ...
>title = {{E}ltern und {K}inder}
> ...
>
> Bibtex will leave all capitalizations in {} unchanged.
Er, I may be missing something here, but if you create a .bst file using
makebst, part of the custbib package, you are given the option of using
either
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:03:23AM +0100, Guenter Milde wrote:
> This is the way most bibtex styles work (and I learned, it is
> the "normal" way it is done in English). As this is a problem
> with German titles (where you need to keep the Capitalization
> of Nouns) all German bibtexers know the
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:38:09 -0500 wrote Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> another one is to throw bibtex out of the window and use amsrefs
> (on www.ams.org). It does not do any such ugly things.
I had a (admittedly very quick) view at the amsrefs homepage --- looks very
promising. I also read
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Paul Tremblay wrote:
Thanks for this response.
These different forms of /cite will change the way the
*citations* appear. But they won't change the form the actual
bibliograpy , will they?
To change the bibliography style, you either need to edit
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002 13:32:57 -0500 wrote Paul Tremblay [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
When I use the natbib package, the entries in my bibliograpy are
not in the form I need.
Natbib only capitlizes the first word of the titles of articles,
This is the way most bibtex styles work (and I learned, it is
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Paul Tremblay wrote:
Thanks for this response.
These different forms of /cite will change the way the
*citations* appear. But they won't change the form the actual
bibliograpy , will they?
To change the bibliography style, you either need to edit
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002 13:32:57 -0500 wrote Paul Tremblay [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
When I use the natbib package, the entries in my bibliograpy are
not in the form I need.
Natbib only capitlizes the first word of the titles of articles,
This is the way most bibtex styles work (and I learned, it is
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Paul Tremblay wrote:
> Thanks for this response.
>
> These different forms of /cite will change the way the
> *citations* appear. But they won't change the form the actual
> bibliograpy , will they?
To change the bibliography style, you either need to
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002 13:32:57 -0500 wrote Paul Tremblay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> When I use the natbib package, the entries in my bibliograpy are
> not in the form I need.
>
> Natbib only capitlizes the first word of the titles of articles,
This is the way most bibtex styles work (and I learned,
When I use the natbib package, the entries in my bibliograpy are
not in the form I need.
Natbib only capitlizes the first word of the titles of articles,
and it does not put quotation marks around them. Also, it does
not put parenthesis around the dates.
Is there a way to customize the way
Paul Tremblay wrote:
When I use the natbib package, the entries in my bibliograpy are
not in the form I need.
Natbib only capitlizes the first word of the titles of articles,
and it does not put quotation marks around them. Also, it does
not put parenthesis around the dates.
Is
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 08:37:06PM +0100, Herbert Voss wrote:
this is what natbib supports. what style do you like:
Herbert
%Author-year mode || Numerical mode
% Then, \citet{key} == Jones et al. (1990)|| Jones et al. [21]
%
Paul Tremblay wrote:
These different forms of /cite will change the way the
*citations* appear. But they won't change the form the actual
bibliograpy , will they?
give an example how you like a bibliography entry. But
remember that there are tons of different bst-files
and one of them may
When I use the natbib package, the entries in my bibliograpy are
not in the form I need.
Natbib only capitlizes the first word of the titles of articles,
and it does not put quotation marks around them. Also, it does
not put parenthesis around the dates.
Is there a way to customize the way
Paul Tremblay wrote:
When I use the natbib package, the entries in my bibliograpy are
not in the form I need.
Natbib only capitlizes the first word of the titles of articles,
and it does not put quotation marks around them. Also, it does
not put parenthesis around the dates.
Is
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 08:37:06PM +0100, Herbert Voss wrote:
this is what natbib supports. what style do you like:
Herbert
%Author-year mode || Numerical mode
% Then, \citet{key} == Jones et al. (1990)|| Jones et al. [21]
%
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
