> @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
>> A case, for instance, "publish" via TW a single paper (Tiddler with
>> transclusions) but still need the enumeration to match a list that is for
>> several such papers you are working on that have a shared bibliography--but
>> is not finished yet. That's an example where maybe your approach could more
>> easily solve it? Hope this is clear!
>>
>
>
Mark S. replied
> I don't know how you would match numbers in papers made in other software
> unless both followed the same, strict, rules on enumeration. Otherwise the
> only hope would be to have the numbers hard-coded in the tiddlers. In which
> case TW would be just a different format for the existing article, begging
> he question: "Why TW?"
>
Right. In terms of actually used systems for citation and wotnot there is
quite a divergence of systems ("style manuals"). Some I think would fit
more easily with TW than others. A major difference is between the
"enumeration" systems (1 ... 10 etc) and the "identifier" methods
("Reginald 1989a" pg4; "Bambi et al 1976" passim).
Maybe I will get round to an overview sometime of what I know of them. At
the moment I think we slightly conflating needs on-line with needs in
serial printed text and oddly I do think it might be easier to clearly
separate them.
Just thoughts.
Thanks to you & M. Its all useful!
Josiah
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/e3526829-ce57-458a-a299-ab94230e8e21%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
