Ulf Martin web.de> writes:
> I think the crucial point for any TeX community is the ability to use
> the rather huge amount of BibTeX legacy DBs.
>
> How about the state of CSL (or RDF) to BibTeX converters?
I don't care about BibTeX myself, so such things aren't my focus.
However, I think a g
Hans Hagen wxs.nl> writes:
> since we're talking databases here, i think the focus should be on what
> kind of (intermediate) format suits typesetting best (could be different
> from the databse structure)
There may be trade-offs, but if you get too typesetting-oriented,
you cause other pro
Hi again folks,
IMHO a good, flexible bibliographic format that plays well with the
other strength of ConTeXt (e.g. XML support) could be sort a killer
feature...
Bruce D'Arcus schrieb:
> The big question becomes, if not MODS, then what? As Ulf pointed out, my
> solution -- and the one I will b
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> I think Ulf's conclusions are right. MODS is expressive, which is why I was
> originally attracted to it, but it's also more complex than it needs to be for
> this sort of use case.
>
since we're talking databases here, i think the focus should be on what
kind of (interme
Hi Hans,
Hans Hagen wxs.nl> writes:
> I wonder, is there any interest in the following:
>
> - support for http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/ as basic bibl format
I think Ulf's conclusions are right. MODS is expressive, which is why I was
originally attracted to it, but it's also more complex t
Hi!
Hans Hagen schrieb:
> - support for http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/ as basic bibl format
> - provide converters from marcs and bibtex to mods
> - layer the bib module on top of that
There was a (short) discussion on about this under the thread "croffref
in bibtex" 2006-03-23 seq, see esp.
Hi,
I wonder, is there any interest in the following:
- support for http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/ as basic bibl format
- provide converters from marcs and bibtex to mods
- layer the bib module on top of that
If so, who'd like to join/volunteer for subtasks
Hans
--
