are reaching consensus on hcite as the root.
+1 hcite
However, I still have my original question -- at one point there were cite
and citation explorations going on. I believe the cite was related to blog
posting (citing one post in another). Has this been renamed?
~ Tim
a href=http
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael
McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
are the people who are voting for hCite
intending the capital C?
Not me:
hCite = uF name
hcite = root class name
--
Andy Mabbett
http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/uFsig
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim White
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
How about hCitation then? Like the others mention, you know its a
format for citations. I could live with hCite as well...
hCite says as much as hCitation, in fewer characters.
hCite +1
hCitation0
points, I vote:
-1 'citation'
-1 'hbib'
-1 'hcitation'
+1 'hcite'
cheers,
-mike
[1]: http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-parsing#root_class_name
PS, why the 'h' - is it an upside-down µ, or does it stand for 'html'?
--
Michael McCracken
UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu
In Brian's book example on the citation-brainstorming wiki page, the
title of the book is marked up with class=fn.
Every example we have uses 'title', except for the US. patent.
I vote to change that example to use 'title' and verify that 'title'
is the class name to be used to represent titles
was refereeing to hCite as the name.
Seems we are reaching consensus on hcite as the root.
+1 hcite
I agree that this seems like a consensus on 'hcite' as the root class name.
I have updated the examples on citation-brainstorming to reflect this,
and added a note to the working straw schema
Just about this part:
I have no opinion about citation vs. hcite.
-mike
http://microformats.org/wiki/naming-principles#h_word
That page suggests that hcite for the root element is the way to go.
-mike
--
Michael McCracken
UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack
On 1/11/07, Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ 1 for citation
-1 for citation, it is too generic for a root class name.
Makes sense; I'll withdraw any vote for `citation`.
The pedant in me says that cite is a verb and not really
appropriate to label something that is a noun. The poet
On Mar 29, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Michael McCracken wrote:
I propose a 'container' class name that would be attached to a nested
hCite instance to note when the nested hCite represents the containing
item for the root hCite. The journal example above would then look
something like this:
span class
From Ryan Cannon on Dec 18th on the wiki:
Is the root element hCite or citation. Let me root for citation
as that semantically describes the content--similar to hCard's root
class of vcard.
I agree, 'citation' is clearer - can we vote on this?
If we get a quorum, I'll edit the wiki examples
I'd like to hear some discussion on the language field for hCite.
I think it is useful, but it has two things going against it for me:
- many citation formats have supported useful work without storing the language
(I've never had 'language' in a bibtex entry, nor seen it written in a
list
On Nov 13, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
I agree. It doesn't seem to help any of the use cases identified in
the wiki:
http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-brainstorming#Use_Cases
It does:
http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-
brainstorming#Buy_a_copy
Both Amazon
- xfolkentry (I would have picked just 'xfolk' today, not sure
why we
went with xfolkentry)
hListing proposal - hlisting
Thus here is another suggestion, based on what I remember of Rohit's
idea,
for the root class name for the citation microformat:
hcite
Thanks,
Tantek
How about
On 1/31/07, Brian Suda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/31/07, Michael McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to hear some discussion on the language field for hCite.
I think it is useful, but it has two things going against it for me:
- many citation formats have supported useful work
hCite has shown up in the list a bit recently, but no actual work is
being done.
The citation wiki pages haven't changed much since April.
At this point, it seems like all it serves to do in reality is
discourage people from developing more focused microformats for
subsets of what hCite should
in a standard academic review. I
guess, then, that we should at some point add hCitation to the review
wiki page.
I do think that, if we decide that this is out of the scope of hCite,
it would be good to include on the wiki somewhere some explanation of
why certain bibliographic/citation
Jeff McNeill wrote:
Question: is there a set of semantic
containers that could identify a bibliography within a given document,
as well as a collection of bibliographies across documents?
What's wrong with...
ul class=bibliography/a
link href=foobar rel=bibliography (from each document in
On 11/13/06, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruce
D'Arcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
But citation uFs are being recommended for more than pure academic
citations - in resumes, for example, where the page count is likely to
be far more relevant.
I
-visited value
for hCite?
I believe date-access is in the staw schema... yup, it's there.
http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-brainstorming#Basic_Citation_Stuctures
~ Tim
tjameswhite.com'http://www.tjameswhite.com;tjameswhite.com
PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:39:44 +
From: Brian Suda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [uf-discuss] hCite progress
...
2) one of the manditory properties across several different citation
formats is TYPE. Is this a Book, Journal entry, Thesis, Video, etc.
Usually and enumerated list
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott
Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
But I do feel strongly that page count is beyond scope.
I agree. It doesn't seem to help any of the use cases identified in
the wiki:
http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-brainstorming#Use_Cases
It does:
http
This question stems from reading the hCite progress thread[1]: In
reading the available citation pages on the wiki[2], the problems
that hCitation tries to solve aren't stated anywhere clearly on the
wiki, per the process.[3] (If I've missed it by mistake, I
apologize.) Is there a page
Tantek,
microformat back in 2005 May at the WWW2005 conference in Tokyo, he
used
hBib or hCite (I don't quite remember, perhaps Rohit will see
this and
speak up) as a candidate name for the microformat
it was hBib IIRC
john
John Allsopp
style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com
On Aug 30, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Michael McCracken wrote:
I'm not convinced that a formalized Dublin Core microformat class set
is necessary for a good citation microformat, and I do think it'd be a
distraction to getting the main goal completed.
A modular system with hDC broken out does seem
On Nov 13, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Brian Suda wrote:
This is the new home for all the citation transformations:
http://suda.co.uk/projects/microformats/hcite/
Thanks Brian.
I've marked up some book examples at:
http://clioweb.org/hcitations.php
For some reason, when I do a transformation, I get
On 1/31/07, Michael McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to hear some discussion on the language field for hCite.
I think it is useful, but it has two things going against it for me:
- many citation formats have supported useful work without storing the language
(I've never had 'language
/citation-brainstorming . More to the
point, the wiki has no consumer use case for my publication use case.
Does this mean that hCite is not for me at all?
If hCite is for me, what's the elevator pitch convincing me to put
more effort into my generator? What benefits should I expect if I do
I've added an example for a journal article to the wiki:
http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-brainstorming#Citing_a_journal_article
-mike
2007/3/29, Michael McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(note - I originally sent this to uf-dev accidentally. My impression
is that more hcite people are on uf
to correct this bias.
Doh! I have some myself, on:
http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/biblio/bb/70-465.htm
Nice, those are good examples - they do mark up the language of the
citation itself, but don't mention the language of the cited object
(presumably because it's easy to deduce
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael
McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/biblio/bb/70-465.htm
Nice, those are good examples
Thank you.
- they do mark up the language of the
citation itself, but don't mention the language of the cited object
On 8/29/06, Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a good summary to date and deserving of being captured on the
citation-brainstorming page.
I agree. I think the fundmental last hump to get over is the choice
between a largely monolithic and flat BibTeX-like approach, and a more
On 8/31/07 1:17 PM, Jason Calabrese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to be using hCite in 1 of the products that I work on.
Since it will be only used interally for now I'm not going to wait for it to
become a recommended specification. I do plan to stay current though.
It looks like
Aloha microformaters,
Individual citations are often collected within a document as a
bibliography (references). Bibliographies from the
library/institutional perspective are organized in collections (either
the references or the actual items referenced. Another example of
collections of
Bruce, thanks for clearing that up.
On 8/29/06, Bruce D'Arcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike,
On 8/29/06, Michael McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you just mean the ability to mark up a relation between two citation items?
For instance, if BibTeX had a convention of things like
On 7/30/06 10:35 AM, Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tantek ?elik:
http://microformats.org/wiki/process
Second, the folks working on the citation microformat to date have done *a
lot* of work along the lines of the process which I recommend you read to
understand the current state
went with xfolkentry)
hListing proposal - hlisting
I believe when Rohit Khare first proposed coming up with a citation
microformat back in 2005 May at the WWW2005 conference in Tokyo, he used
hBib or hCite (I don't quite remember, perhaps Rohit will see this and
speak up) as a candidate name
://microformats.org/wiki/citation-brainstorming . More to the
point, the wiki has no consumer use case for my publication use case.
Does this mean that hCite is not for me at all?
Not at all. You are using the BibTex format, which is covered in the
citation formats http://microformats.org
. More to the
point, the wiki has no consumer use case for my publication use case.
Does this mean that hCite is not for me at all?
Not at all. You are using the BibTex format, which is covered in
the citation formats http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-formats
Sure, but considering
I agree that the use of hAtom + citation, or even Atom + citation
(hCite?) would be a good method to syndicate citation formats. The
discussion of citations has been kicking up and then dying a number
of times, and I take some of the blame as one of the people who'd
like to push the format
,
books, or proceedings. (Sometimes references are referred to by a
footnote.) Would it be plausible to use an include pattern[1] to
provide in-line citation and more complete citation/bibliographic
reference? This would also support the wikiref template for
mediawiki[2].
[1] http://microformats.org
completely agree. From my understanding, that information included
inside the DESCRIPTION field in hReview could be marked up with
hCitation. hReview isn't, however, listed in the Modularity section
of the citation page, though I imagine it could be.[1]
Is there a reason why hCite could
of the words in the book's title,
snip
(And hence, drop the 'language' field from the hCite straw format?)
I still don't think that that are anywhere near enough examples,
especially of non-English-language sources, to be confident that it's
not widely used.
I'm going to suggest that a language
against Tim's reasons, there are cases in which citations can have a
date published and a date visited or accessed. When citing websites
and web pages, for instance, some citation formats display date
published and date visited, when that information is available. More
often than
.
This is the new home for all the citation transformations:
http://suda.co.uk/projects/microformats/hcite/
Once we get our version system setup for a citation test suite, i will
be creating HTML and cite-specific formats and will need some feedback
on other things to check-in (anyone else is more than welcome
, at 10:17 PM, Scott Reynen wrote:
Page count still looks out of scope to me for hCite, and closer to
the type of information (i.e. file size) being discussed in media-
info.
The only problem I see with this is that, according to the citation-
brainstorming page, there is a significant
On 10/21/06, Jeremy Boggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sounds like this might be a good addition to the citation
microformat effort [1] and related pages. [2] I think the majority of
the discussion/efffort for the citation has focused on text
documents, but a case could certainly be made
. hReview isn't, however, listed in the Modularity
section of the citation page, though I imagine it could be.[1]
Is there a reason why hCite could not be used in a book review
marked up in hReview?
I don't see any. You have to cite a book before you can review it,
right?
If there is a need
. In contrast,
specifying a specific page in a work:
div class=citation
div class=hciteJohn Doe, Lorem Ipsum, abbr title=20-23
class=pages20-23/abbr/div
div class=hciteJane Doe, _Dolor Sit Amet_ abbr title=320
class=pages320/abbr/div
/div
Parsers would know that, because an HCITE is inside
could use tags, but then we are still picking out the tag portion
as the TYPE value. You could do that already now with Keywords in
hCite and Skills in hResume and Categories in hCard. And the value
that gets extracted would need to still have to match to some sort of
logical citation type.
I ate
Identifier is, Per the straw man[1]:
An (not necessarily globally unique) identifier, such as a
cite-key, pubmed ID number, or simply the reference number
or string within a publication ([1] or [CLRS2001])
I wrote an hCite export template for BibDesk*, and used the
identifier (cite-key
On 1/17/07, Michael McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking at the examples on citation-examples, I find the following
frequencies of marking up a date:
publication date: 21
date accessed: 3
date copyrighted: 1 (from OCLC worldcat online)
I just added date-accessed to the working straw
and the
journal have a title.
I actually brought this up in December in response to Brian's straw
format[1],
but the words I thought to use were collection or in. I like in
largely
because some citation formats actually use that word to describe this
type of
relationship:
The American
Hi, aside from adding a few good examples of existing formats, it
looks like there hasn't been any movement toward the Aug 30 deadline
for hCite 0.1. Should we reschedule the goal?
Also, what is the immediate next step on the path to a recommendation?
Do we need to clarify the existing research
is whether you're already integrating other data,
such as images of book covers, from other sources, or whether *all* the
data about the book needs to be in the citation.
Personally, I think having as much information as possible is a good
thing. This is most important for 'self' hCitations, less
From Bruce D'Arcus on the wiki:
I've mentioned more than once that date-published is misleadingly
specific; too much for real world citations. Consider that many books
are published in the year preceding their copyright date, which is in
fact the date used for citation. I'd prefer just date
'?
I've been reading Wikipedia's articles and policies on citation, and it
uses both; -published chiefly for books and journal articles; -accessed
for citing external web pages.
(Start at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources)
--
Andy Mabbett
I wonder what the archives, Google
Again, and I don't mean to sound dismissal:
What does the inclusion of 'total number of pages' grant you here?
If you can't grab total number of pages, does your plan of absolute
bird book aggregation fail miserably?
It seems to me that the citation aggregator would be/could be doing
something
On 1/17/2007 Brian Suda said:
--- i don't feel it is appropriate for us to mandate how to encode
microformats. If i want to create a citation in prose inside a
paragraph, then i should be able to 'hang' the class=hcite on the
block-level p or div. Microformats are all about NOT changing
user's
; raise questions without offering much on
solutions. My apologies.) Does anyone else have thoughts about this?
Maybe it would be useful to use the include-pattern in hCite?
It seems like it would be helpful to be able to include information
on a work in a smaller citation. Given the example
in this case). Also, citation
could probably be hcite?
Is your other question in the other email thread? If so, I'll respond
over there.
I have no opinion about citation vs. hcite.
-mike
--
Michael McCracken
UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/
misc: http://michael
to make a better
citation format. I'm sure we can do better. But if we do, we miss the
boat and lose the collective value of all the software that would natively
support the format.
Regardless of the end result, you will need software to convert from
legacy formats into and out of hCite
feel this is a very short-sighted decision, if it's the route hCite
goes... You'd never be able to link to an appropriate copy (because
you wouldn't be able to determine with any semblance of confidence
what an item actually is) and I'm therefore not sure what the point of
this is.
I guess the way
, Andy Mabbett wrote:
I agree. It doesn't seem to help any of the use cases identified in
the wiki:
http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-brainstorming#Use_Cases
It does:
http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-
brainstorming#Buy_a_copy
Both Amazon and ABE cite page counts.
Sure
there also be a date-accessed or date-visited value
for hCite?
I believe date-access is in the staw schema... yup, it's there.
http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-brainstorming#Basic_Citation_Stuctures
~ Tim
OK, I disappeared for a while there, but is it fair to summarize this thread
by saying
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael McCracken
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 6:05 PM
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: Re: RE: [uf-discuss] [citation] url field
This seems to have been buried - so again, to anyone
interested in hCite:
I want to define a new field URL to denote an http
that what you're asking for is actually not as
complicated as it may sound.
Do you just mean the ability to mark up a relation between two citation items?
For instance, if BibTeX had a convention of things like this:
@inbook{chapterkey,
title=chapter 1,
cites=articlekey,article2key,...,
partof
/microformats/hcite/
Once we get our version system setup for a citation test suite, i will
be creating HTML and cite-specific formats and will need some feedback
on other things to check-in (anyone else is more than welcome to
create some tests too *hint* *hint* :) ).
There have been a few hiccups
somewhat harder. This
might be a worthwhile tradeoff.
I feel this is a very short-sighted decision, if it's the route hCite
goes...
A side note - I'm not in charge, I'm just loud :)
hCite won't go that route unless a lot of people say it should.
I'm personally in favor of including types and having
I only meant that a citation provides two useful pieces of
information: stating that yes, someone else has said this, and where,
when, and in what format I found said citation.
I'd also like to take a minute to argue with placing the citation
styles (MLA, APA and friends) with only
be discontinuous.
2) one of the manditory properties across several different citation
formats is TYPE. Is this a Book, Journal entry, Thesis, Video, etc.
Usually and enumerated list of values. The issue is that EVERYONE does
it differently...
And from my own experience, this is not at all easy to do. I've
the end page of a quotation
the page run (e.g. 3-4, 6, 8) of a quotation
At the very least, if we include some, but not all. of those in hCite,
we should name them in such a way as to make it possible, preferably
simple, to include the others in future.
Presumably, existing citation standards
(although not necessarily the
reverse).
Does this seem accurate?
-Ross.
On 7/30/06, Edward Summers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 30, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
What if we set a goal for hCite 0.1 of August 30? Is that reasonable?
If Brian Suda has the spare cycles I think
once said it's not
generally good practice to double up classes (hcite book) but I'd
like some explanation about why.
But I will say that in either case, one must allow for extensions.
I've worked on this for a long time, and defining a fixed list of
types that is anything but arbitrary is pretty
.), and sort of important too for formatting in the sense the there
are different conventions (rules) for formatting different kinds of
references.
Note, though, that as someone who designed both a citation style
language and code to format citations, I think sometimes people get
too distracted
of it.
Which is exactly why the length of the book is irrelevant. The only
time you include pages in a citation is if you are referring to a
section within a book (typically a chapter), and the purpose there is
simply to help you find it. Page count does nothing to help you
On 11/13/06, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But citation uFs are being recommended for more than pure academic
citations - in resumes, for example, where the page count is likely to
be far more relevant.
I seriously doubt it. I certainly wouldn't include it (and don't) in my CV
in
the wiki:
http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-brainstorming#Use_Cases
I'm sure there are contexts in which page count would be helpful, but
those seem to relate more to the media-info problem of distinguishing
between multiple means of publishing the same content:
http
Michael McCracken wrote:
Looking at the examples on citation-examples, I find the
following frequencies of marking up a date:
publication date: 21
date accessed: 3
date copyrighted: 1 (from OCLC worldcat online)
Actually, date accessed has at least three more examples:
umich
ning
a format for
citations would be great. What they need is for is that any time a
government publication refers to any other publication (a site, a
book, a pamphlet on immunisation, a poster on healthy diets,
whatever) they have to cite it. But of course there is no citation
format.
I actually
of getting a scholarly (not just
scientific) article microformat would be hCite/citation
microformat, and a metadata format (possibly related to Dublin
Core??).
There is more than that, particularly when you want to include the
actual data, but yes, the main parts so far are a) metadata, b
, notwithstanding my other quetion about the type
span (which seems even more funky in this case). Also, citation
could probably be hcite?
Bruce
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo
McCracken
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 6:05 PM
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: Re: RE: [uf-discuss] [citation] url field
This seems to have been buried - so again, to anyone
interested in hCite:
I want to define a new field URL to denote an http URL that
points to the location of a copy
Hello Mike, thanks for bringing this up.
I spent a good portion of the weekend looking at my earlier straw
proposal. I started to create an XMDP file and took the examples
listed on the wiki and attempted to mark them-up with the citation
microformat. This would help to find any deficiencies
-used citation formats.
Is there any reason why neither BibTex nor EndNote fields are listed
in the citation-examples
page of the wiki? They seem the closest thing to what we're looking
for, i.e. BibTex could be to
hCite what vCard is to hCard. Blithely creating our own format seems
reckless
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
On 7/30/06, Fred Stutzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, of course it isn't the overwhelmingly dominant bibliographic/citation
format
It's not even close. If you ask 100 people in my field about BibTeX,
my guess is at least 90 of them of them won't
. Look at the
examples collected on the wiki, very little metadata if any.
(http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-examples -- look to the Implied
Schema section)
Earlier in this thread I stated that many of these examples are
exactly the opposite of what we're trying to do -- they violate
to hCite.
But I see citation metadata as a cycle. I want ulitmately to be able
to output good uF metadata such that users can:
- view a nicely formatted document in their browser, complete with
proper citations
- click some button and go to the original article or book
- click some other thingy
disagree, not least because people often cite a whole book, rather
than part of it.
Which is exactly why the length of the book is irrelevant.
No it isn't. Note not least.
The only
time you include pages in a citation is if you are referring to a
section within a book (typically a chapter
On 3/23/07, Paul Wilkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mar 10, 2007, at 23:10, Paul Wilkins wrote:
You are using the BibTex format, which is covered in the
citation formats http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-formats
Sure, but considering that I share my .bib, should I
(1-5 stars),
summaries, bibTeX entries, and citation statistics.
On the ACM website[4], a given article[5] has a link to 'find similar
articles'[6], which is in essence an annotated bibliography.
It seems that rel (rev being deprecated[7]), with a bit of semantics,
could distinguish the various
since our last major discussion.
-brian
On 7/30/06, Edward Summers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 30, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
What if we set a goal for hCite 0.1 of August 30? Is that reasonable?
If Brian Suda has the spare cycles I think this is an excellent idea.
The citation
to me that hCite would use
that, and that other formats could too, than that we'd define it all
in hCite.
FWIW, here's the demo I prepared for the ODF group to show namepsace
and vocabularly mxing, and example of the relational character of
citation data..
It's RDF, but I'm sure you can imagine
Brian, this is quite impressive. I particularly like the use of hCard
in this context (although I think it's critical that we use more
granular n attributes -- there are just too many ways to mark up a
citation).
Going into your unresolved items -- I see URL being pretty darned
important. It's
, there is no way that the conventions of BibTeX -- conventions
which preceded the web-- ought to be in any way privileged in hCite.
Key is one of these. They are indeed just identifiers.
Within BibTeX, keys only need to be locally unique. For reference, I
use URIs to achieve the same thing in my citations
, which has just gone live:
http://zotero.org
They'll be supporting hCite once it's done.
Bruce
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruce
D'Arcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
But citation uFs are being recommended for more than pure academic
citations - in resumes, for example, where the page count is likely to
be far more relevant.
I seriously doubt it.
That's your prerogative; but foolish
files that use it. There
could be plenty that aren't common or I haven't seen...
On 11/13/06, Brian Suda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, i have wiki-fied several citation examples from a previous
email, with accessed date. I have not updated any implied-schemas to
reflect any changes yet. I haven't
On 1/17/07, Joe Andrieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael McCracken wrote:
Looking at the examples on citation-examples, I find the
following frequencies of marking up a date:
publication date: 21
date accessed: 3
date copyrighted: 1 (from OCLC worldcat online)
Actually, date accessed has
Mike said:
From Bruce D'Arcus on the wiki:
I've mentioned more than once that date-published is misleadingly
specific; too much for real world citations. Consider that many books
are published in the year preceding their copyright date, which is in
fact the date used for citation. I'd prefer just
On Mar 23, 2007, at 14:22, Paul Wilkins wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mar 10, 2007, at 23:10, Paul Wilkins wrote:
You are using the BibTex format, which is covered in the
citation formats http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-formats
Sure, but considering that I share my .bib, should I
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
