Georg Baum wrote:
Sven Schreiber wrote:
afaik the weaknesses of the used simple bibtex parser are known, but not
to me, so please what are recommendations for the bibtex file format so
that the parser won't get confused?
I never had any problems with .bib files that were sanitized by
Georg Baum wrote:
Sven Schreiber wrote:
afaik the weaknesses of the used simple bibtex parser are known, but not
to me, so please what are recommendations for the bibtex file format so
that the parser won't get confused?
I never had any problems with .bib files that were sanitized by
Georg Baum wrote:
> Sven Schreiber wrote:
>
>
>>afaik the weaknesses of the used simple bibtex parser are known, but not
>>to me, so please what are recommendations for the bibtex file format so
>>that the parser won't get confused?
>
>
> I never had any problems with .bib files that were
i dont know much about how lyx handles bibtex underneath the hood - but
recently i wrote some tools to keep track of my own reference
collection. these are some of my experiences:
bibtex is inherently difficult to parse - because the format is very
flexible. i dont think a simple parser will do -
Sven Schreiber wrote:
afaik the weaknesses of the used simple bibtex parser are known, but not
to me, so please what are recommendations for the bibtex file format so
that the parser won't get confused?
I never had any problems with .bib files that were sanitized by BibTool -
see
i dont know much about how lyx handles bibtex underneath the hood - but
recently i wrote some tools to keep track of my own reference
collection. these are some of my experiences:
bibtex is inherently difficult to parse - because the format is very
flexible. i dont think a simple parser will do -
Sven Schreiber wrote:
afaik the weaknesses of the used simple bibtex parser are known, but not
to me, so please what are recommendations for the bibtex file format so
that the parser won't get confused?
I never had any problems with .bib files that were sanitized by BibTool -
see
i dont know much about how lyx handles bibtex underneath the hood - but
recently i wrote some tools to keep track of my own reference
collection. these are some of my experiences:
bibtex is inherently difficult to parse - because the format is very
flexible. i dont think a "simple" parser will do
Sven Schreiber wrote:
> afaik the weaknesses of the used simple bibtex parser are known, but not
> to me, so please what are recommendations for the bibtex file format so
> that the parser won't get confused?
I never had any problems with .bib files that were sanitized by BibTool -
see
