Hi all,
it was quite heartwarming to see how many of us rallied for better
bibliographical support when Wolfgang asked what we missed most in ConTeXt...
And it's wonderful to see that a new structure for the entire bibliographical
stuff is on its way. Hans's xml-based approach will make things
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
Hi all,
it was quite heartwarming to see how many of us rallied for better
bibliographical support when Wolfgang asked what we missed most in
ConTeXt... And it's wonderful to see that a new structure for the
entire bibliographical stuff is on its way. Hans's xml-based
On Feb 11, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Is there a setup option for this, or is a hack needed?
I expect adding a \setuppublications[refcommand=num] just before the
\completepublications will work.
Best wishes,
Taco
And right you are! I should've thought of that myself!
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
I just ran into the same question. When using a citation style that
doesn't quote the year (like refcommand=num), it seems more logical
to drop the maybeyear letter. It seems to work setting
\def\maybeyear{\gobbleoneargument}
I haven't seen any side
On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
The problem with redefining \maybeyear is that it affects all
citations equally: when you have three Knuth records with the
same year and two Tuftes with the same year in the database, then
if you use only one of Knuths but both Tuftes, you
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
IMHO, bibtex should now generate keys such as Hoek2006a and Hoek2006b
or authoryear references like Hoekwater (2006a) and Hoekwater
(2006b), but it should not (!) append the a and b to the years in
the bibliographic list itself.
Actually, sometimes it should,
On Sep 15, 2006, at 11:47 AM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
IMHO, bibtex should now generate keys such as Hoek2006a and Hoek2006b
or authoryear references like Hoekwater (2006a) and Hoekwater
(2006b), but it should not (!) append the a and b to the years in
the
IMHO, bibtex should now generate keys such as Hoek2006a and
Hoek2006b or authoryear references like Hoekwater (2006a) and
Hoekwater (2006b), but it should not (!) append the a and b to
the years in the bibliographic list itself. But I may be wrong here
- what do you and other users say?
On Sep 15, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
At first I was sure that (2006a) and (2006b) are the right answer for
the list. Othewise how else could the user know which entry to look
up when they see, say, Hoekwater (2006b) in the text? But I just
figured out the answer to that
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
So question to Taco: maybe we need three options for maybeyear?
1. off [always]
This is the one that is missing, yes? Because the
\setuppublicationlist[maybeyear=off]
is actually option 3.
2. on [always]
3. on for tags and authoryear etc., off for the
On Sep 10, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
[Taco: The reference to Knuth below comes out as (Knuth, 1981c) even
though there are no other 1981 entries for Knuth cited in the text.
Is that hard to fix given ConTeXt's way of dealing with bibtex, in
that it just incorporates the entire
Sanjoy,
thanks for your rely. Of course you're quite right, this is the wau
to go, and it works. But my question was imprecise because I did not
mention what was causing the problem: I'm working with split
bibliographies and want to refer in chapter 2 to an item already
included in the
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
Sanjoy,
thanks for your rely. Of course you're quite right, this is the wau
to go, and it works. But my question was imprecise because I did not
mention what was causing the problem: I'm working with split
bibliographies and want to refer in chapter 2 to an
On Sep 11, 2006, at 7:11 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
You can try this:
\def\silentcite[#1]%
{\bgroup
\let\addthisref\gobbleoneargument
\cite[#1]%
\egroup}
(untested). If that does not work, it is not possible.
Taco
Taco,
thanks for the suggestion. It doesn't
Thomas,
Is it possible to refer to this raw counter across chapters?
Not sure -- it is beyond my ConTeXt bib module competence, but I hope
one of the resident experts has an idea...
-Sanjoy
`Never underestimate the evil of which men of power are capable.'
--Bertrand Russell, _War
Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
I need to repeat my experiments, but I think it worked to use simply
\cite in the bibtex entry. Ah, here is one example. It uses
xampl.bib, which comes with old distributions of ConTeXt (e.g. teTeX
3.0's distribution).
Yeah, that's how I expected it to be done.
I'm pleased as punch with the new bib module and have been writing my
new lists with it all day. There is one thing that I could not make
work, and I wonder if it is possible at all. I have 2 entries:
[1] Some collected volume
[2] Some article, in: a journal [reprinted in [1]].
Is it
17 matches
Mail list logo
