summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorNorbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900
committerNorbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900
commite0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d (patch)
tree60335e10d2f4354b0674ec22d7b53f0f8abee672 /info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex
Initial commit
Diffstat (limited to 'info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex')
-rw-r--r--info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex1065
1 files changed, 1065 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex b/info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..01ca6c03a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,1065 @@
+%%% ====================================================================
+%%% @LaTeX3-article{ LaTeX3-L3-005,
+%%% filename = "l3d005.tex",
+%%% archived = "ctan:/tex-archive/info/ltx3pub/",
+%%% author = "David Rhead",
+%%% doc-group = "Project core team",
+%%% title = "The ``operational requirement'' (?) for
+%%% support of bibliographic references by
+%%% \LaTeX\ 3",
+%%% version = "1.00",
+%%% date = "09 August 1993",
+%%% time = "10:48:08 MET",
+%%% status = "public, official",
+%%% abstract = "
+%%% It is suggested that:
+%%% \begin{itemize}
+%%% \item \LaTeX\ 3 should aim to support the
+%%% principal citation schemes used
+%%% in conventional publishing
+%%% \item consideration be given to a
+%%% {\it modus vivendi} between \LaTeX\ 3
+%%% and mainstream bibliography-formatting
+%%% software.
+%%% \end{itemize}
+%%% ",
+%%% keywords = "",
+%%% project-address = "LaTeX3 Project \\
+%%% c/o Dr. Chris Rowley \\
+%%% The Open University \\
+%%% Parsifal College \\
+%%% Finchley Road \\
+%%% London NW3 7BG, England, UK",
+%%% project-tel = "+44 171 794 0575",
+%%% project-FAX = "+44 171 433 6196",
+%%% project-email = "LTX3-Mgr@SHSU.edu",
+%%% copyright = "Copyright (C) 1993 LaTeX3 Project
+%%% and David Rhead.
+%%% All rights reserved.
+%%%
+%%% No permissions to copy or distribute this
+%%% publication in any form are granted and in
+%%% particular no permission to copy or distribute
+%%% parts of it.",
+%%% generalinfo = "To subscribe to the LaTeX3 discussion list:
+%%%
+%%% Send mail to listserv@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
+%%% with the following line as the body of the
+%%% message (substituting your own name):
+%%%
+%%% subscribe LaTeX-L First-name Surname
+%%%
+%%% To find out about volunteer work:
+%%%
+%%% look at the document vol-task.tex which can
+%%% be obtained electronically, see below.
+%%%
+%%% To retrieve project publications electronically:
+%%%
+%%% Project publications are available for
+%%% retrieval by anonymous ftp from ctan hosts:
+%%% ftp.tex.ac.uk
+%%% ftp.dante.de
+%%% ftp.shsu.edu
+%%% in the directory /tex-archive/info/ltx3pub.
+%%%
+%%% The file ltx3pub.bib in that directory gives
+%%% full bibliographical information including
+%%% abstracts in BibTeX format. A brief history
+%%% of the project and a description of its aims
+%%% is contained in l3d001.tex.
+%%%
+%%% If you only have access to email, and not ftp
+%%% You may use the ftpmail service.
+%%% Send a message just containg the word
+%%% help
+%%% to ftpmail@ftp.shsu.edu
+%%% for more information about this service.
+%%%
+%%% For offers of financial contributions or
+%%% contributions of computing equipment or
+%%% software, contact the project at the above
+%%% address, or the TeX Users Group.
+%%%
+%%% For offers of technical assistance, contact the
+%%% project at the above address.
+%%%
+%%% For technical enquiries and suggestions, send
+%%% e-mail to the latex-l list or contact the
+%%% project at the above address.",
+%%% checksum = "15455 1065 6201 46964",
+%%% docstring = "The checksum field above contains a CRC-16
+%%% checksum as the first value, followed by the
+%%% equivalent of the standard UNIX wc (word
+%%% count) utility output of lines, words, and
+%%% characters. This is produced by Robert
+%%% Solovay's checksum utility.",
+%%% }
+%%% ====================================================================
+% LaTeX 2.09 document
+
+\documentstyle{l3ms001}
+
+
+\newcommand{\BibTeX}{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em
+ T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}
+
+
+\newcommand{\bs}{\char '134}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\title{The ``operational requirement'' (?) for
+support of bibliographic references by \LaTeX\ 3}
+\author{David Rhead}
+\date{August 1993}
+
+% Cripps Computing Centre
+% University of Nottingham
+% JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nott.vme
+
+\maketitle
+
+\begin{abstract}
+It is suggested that:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item \LaTeX\ 3 should aim to support the principal citation schemes used
+ in conventional publishing
+\item consideration be given to a {\it modus vivendi} between \LaTeX\ 3 and
+ mainstream bibliography-formatting software.
+\end{itemize}
+\end{abstract}
+
+\tableofcontents
+
+\section{Introduction}
+
+Ideally, when writing software, it is a good idea to write down what the
+software is intended to achieve --- the ``operational requirement'' ---
+before writing any code.
+
+This article attempts to take an ``operational requirement'' approach to
+the ``bibliographic reference'' aspects of \LaTeX\ 3.%
+\footnote{Obviously, there are limits to the what the OR approach can
+achieve. For example, it is difficult to quantify ``usability''.
+Nevertheless, the approach should facilitate debate about objectives {\em
+before} the ``user interface'' has been fixed.}
+The objective is to stimulate debate --- if you don't agree with my
+suggestions, please suggest specific alternatives! (In the remainder of
+the article, ``operational requirement'' is abbreviated to ``OR''.)
+
+Generalizing the approach taken by the \LaTeX\ 2.09 manual \cite[pp.\
+73--74]{lamport-86}, it is convenient to divide the topic into ``doing it
+yourself'' and ``using bibliography-formatting software''.
+
+\section{Doing it yourself}
+\label{DIY}
+
+In effect, the only scheme that is ``fully supported'' by \LaTeX\ 2.09 is
+``reference by number, where the sequence of numbers is determined by
+position in the reference-list''.
+
+By contrast, for ``real-world publishing'', my impression is that:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item
+ only a minority of ``instructions to authors'' specify anything like
+ the default \LaTeX\ 2.09 scheme. This minority consists of those
+ journals that specify ``reference by number, with the reference-list
+ in alphabetical order of author's names''.
+\item the majority of ``instructions to authors'', style-books, etc.,
+ specify one of the following:
+ \begin{enumerate}
+ \item
+ reference by number, with the reference-list in order of first
+ citation
+ \item
+ author-date
+ \item
+ ``short-form in footnotes''. For publications in the humanities,
+ there seem to be two main variants of this scheme, depending on
+ whether or not there is a reference-list.%
+\footnote{If there is no reference-list, the convention is usually ``first
+citation gives full bibliographic details, subsequent citations give
+cross-reference to first citation''. This variant is common in law
+publications, when it is used in conjunction with numerous law-specific
+citation conventions \cite{harvard-law}.}
+ \end{enumerate}
+ ISO 690 \cite[sec.\ 9]{iso-690} provides a convenient specification of
+ the details of these schemes. The default \LaTeX\ 2.09 system gives
+ no particular help to anyone wanting to use them.%
+\footnote{%
+\BibTeX\ can help with (a).
+Anyone wishing to use (b) will probably grope around in archives
+looking for style-options that: arrange for {\tt \bs cite} to give (\dots)
+rather than [\dots]; omit [\dots] from the reference-list; support
+date-only citations when the author's name appears naturally in a
+sentence.
+Apart from the law-specific Lexi\TeX\ \cite{bennett-93}, I'm not aware of
+any 2.09-related software that helps people who wish to use scheme (c).}
+ \item a few publishers specify alternative schemes.
+ E.g.,
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item some Springer journals%
+\footnote{See the ``instructions for authors'' in, for example, {\it
+Mathematische Zeitschrift.}}
+ accept citations of the form ``first letter of author's surname,
+ in square brackets''
+ \item
+ Butcher \cite{butcher-92} mentions a variation of the
+ reference-by-number system in which there is a separate numerical
+ sequence for each letter, and a variation of the author-date
+ system in which a number is used instead of a date
+ \item a scheme like the \BibTeX\ {\tt alpha} style is sometimes
+ used (for example, in the journal {\it Formal Aspects of
+ Computing}).
+ \end{itemize}
+\end{enumerate}
+
+Therefore, I suggest that the OR for \LaTeX\ 3:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item
+ should include support%
+\footnote{I assume that ``sorting a reference-list'' will be beyond the
+scope of \LaTeX\ 3. Thus, in practice, the \LaTeX\ 3 ``support'' might be
+minimal (a ``better than nothing'' warning that a reference-list needs
+human intervention, perhaps). People who want anything better would
+be advised to use bibliography-formatting software.}
+ for the schemes mentioned in items 1 and 2 above, i.e.,
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item
+ a 2.09-like scheme aimed at journals that specify ``reference by
+ number, with the reference-list in alphabetical order of author's
+ names''
+ \item
+ the schemes specified in ISO 690, namely: ``reference-by-number
+ in order of first citation'', author-date, and 2 variations of
+ ``short-form in footnotes''.%
+\footnote{To support these schemes, it is probably desirable that \LaTeX\ 3
+should be able to determine whether a citation of a source is ``the first
+citation'' of that source. Clearly this would help to provide support for
+``reference by number in order of first citation''. In the author-date
+case, it would allow support for the convention \cite[sec.\ 3.87]{apa-83}
+that, when there are multiple authors, they should all be named in the
+first citation but ``{\it et al.\/}'' should be used subsequently. It
+might also help to provide support for the variant of the short-form scheme
+in which a ``subsequent citation'' uses the short-form and gives a
+cross-reference to the footnote containing the ``first citation'' (where
+full details of the source can be found).}
+ \end{itemize}
+\item
+ should bear in mind the possibility of a ``plug-in module'' to support
+ law conventions. Since such conventions are only crucial to lawyers,
+ it would probably be inappropriate to delay \LaTeX\ 3 while
+ law-specific commands were finalised, or to increase the bulk of the
+ \LaTeX\ 3 manual by including law-specific material. Nevertheless, it
+ might be worth simultaneous experiments with a prototype \LaTeX\ 3
+ and a prototype law-support module, in the hope that the law-specific
+ commands in such a module might end up with a similar ``look and
+ feel'' to those for the mainstream ``short-form in footnotes''
+ commands.
+\item
+ need not include support for the alternative schemes mentioned in
+ item~3 above (although the possibility of ``plug-in modules'' to
+ support these schemes might be borne in mind).
+\end{itemize}
+
+In addition, the following features are desirable:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item
+ for situations where several bibliographic sources are cited
+ simultaneously:
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item
+ a syntax that permits a particular division of each source to be
+ pin-pointed \cite[sec.\ 15.25]{chicago-82}. (The \LaTeX\ 2.09
+ \verb+\cite[...]{...}+ syntax only supports pin-pointing within a
+ single source.)
+ \item
+ a mechanism for sorting reference-by-number citations into
+ ascending numerical order \cite[p.~106]{acs-86}.%
+\footnote{Alternatively, if it is not feasible to sort reference-by-number
+and author-date citations into a desired order, mechanisms for giving
+warnings if simultaneous citations are in the wrong order would be ``better
+than nothing''.}
+ \item
+ a mechanism for sorting author-date citations%
+\addtocounter{footnote}{-1}\footnotemark
+ into alphabetical
+ order of author's surnames (or, ideally, the order in which the
+ sources appear in the reference-list) \cite[sec.\ 3.91]{apa-83}
+ or into ``date of publication'' order \cite[sec.\
+ 15.24]{chicago-82}.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\item
+ support for types of bibliography that, although not as common
+ as a single undivided list, are appropriate in
+ particular circumstances, namely:
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item a list divided into sections according to kinds of material,
+ subject matter or other appropriate categories
+ \item an annotated bibliography
+ \item a bibliographical essay.
+ \end{itemize}
+ See, for example, the {\it Chicago Manual of Style} \cite[chap.\
+ 15]{chicago-82}.
+
+ End-users could get confused if they try using \LaTeX\ 2.09's {\tt
+ thebibliography} environment for such bibliographies.
+\end{itemize}
+The above might provide the major elements of an OR\@. Minor elements may
+be more difficult to specify, but can perhaps be summarized as
+\begin{quote}
+ \LaTeX\ 3 should be able to survive $\beta$-testing of whether
+ it can conveniently deliver bibliographic details formatted as
+ specified by influential style-books and ``instructions for authors''.
+\end{quote}
+See
+\cite{harvard-law,iso-690,butcher-92,apa-83,chicago-82,mhra-91,mla-88,%
+vancouver-91,bs-5605,bs-1629,bs-6371}.
+
+
+\section{Using bibliography-formatting software}
+
+\subsection[Background]{Background\footnotemark}
+\footnotetext{Warning: I do not currently have ``hands on'' experience of
+using \LaTeX\ in conjunction with software other than \BibTeX\ (although I
+have browsed through as many of the relevant manuals as I could find).
+Hence, the ideas given in this section, and in section \ref{misc},
+are theoretical and speculative.}
+\label{background}
+
+\subsubsection{Software available}
+
+The bibliography-formatting software that is ``advertised'' in the \LaTeX\
+2.09 manual is \BibTeX\ \cite{lamport-86,patashnik-88}. Tib
+\cite{alexander-89} is also sometimes mentioned in \TeX\ circles.
+
+In fact, there are a large number of bibliography-formatting programs
+available. A recent review article \cite{stigleman-93} names 52 such
+programs.
+
+Judging by comments on the {\tt bibsoft} list, the most important
+bibliographic programs (from the point-of-view of professional librarians
+and bibliographers) seem to be EndNote, Library Master, Papyrus, ProCite
+and Reference Manager. (Appendices \ref{suppliers} and
+\ref{discussion-lists} give details of the {\tt bibsoft} list and of the
+relevant vendors.)
+
+Of these, EndNote, Papyrus, ProCite and Reference Manager have procedures
+for processing a ``manuscript'', filling in the in-text citations and
+generating the corresponding reference-list. Although I understand that a
+similar facility is planned for the next version of Library Master, I don't
+know what form this will take. Therefore, when referring to these
+programs, I will use:
+\begin{description}
+\item[``main 4''] to mean the programs (EndNote, Papyrus, ProCite and Reference
+ Manager) whose procedures for filling in the in-text citations are
+ currently known
+\item[``main 5''] to mean the ``main 4'' plus Library Master.
+\end{description}
+
+>From a \LaTeX-er's point-of-view, the public-domain \BibTeX\ and Tib are
+obviously attractive, since they were {\em designed} to work with
+\TeX/\LaTeX, and are available for most of the platforms on which
+\TeX/\LaTeX\ are available. By contrast, the ``main 5'' are:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item proprietary
+\item currently aimed at ``wordprocessor'' users.%
+\footnote{Certain vendors state that \TeX\ is one of their program's
+``supported wordprocessors''. You may or may not regard this as a hopeful
+sign!}
+\item only available on a restricted selection of platforms. (All are
+ available for MS-DOS. Some are available for Macintosh or VAX/VMS.)
+\end{itemize}
+
+Nevertheless, there are many things about the ``main 5'' that are of
+interest:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item
+ The programs have standard procedures for importing information from
+ standard database programs, online information services, CD-ROMs and
+ library catalogues.
+\item
+ They generally have good facilities for maintenance of a ``personal
+ bibliographic database'', and for searching such a database for
+ entries that satisfy particular criteria.
+\item
+ It seems likely that the programs will continue to be developed and
+ supported into the future. (By contrast, my understanding is that
+ \BibTeX\ will be ``frozen'' when version 1.0 has been finished.)
+\item
+ There is a choice. If one program has underlying assumptions that
+ don't match the assumptions that are usual in your discipline, you can
+ look for an alternative!
+\end{itemize}
+
+Even if you don't regard the ``main 5'' as of positive interest, you may be
+unable to avoid them. If a research-group contains a \LaTeX-ing minority
+and a non-\LaTeX-ing majority:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item
+ the ``majority'' may choose one of the ``main 5'' as the group's
+ ``standard bib\-li\-og\-ra\-phy-formatting software''
+\item
+ the \LaTeX-ers will then be at a serious disadvantage if they cannot
+ use the group's bibliographic databases.
+\end{itemize}
+Also, if your librarian is providing bibliographic information in
+electronic form (e.g., from a computerized library catalogue), s/he may
+offer an off-the-shelf way to get the information into a database for one
+of the ``main 5'', but be unable to help you if you use \BibTeX.
+
+Overall, it seems to me desirable that, as well as having standard
+procedures for inter-working with \BibTeX\ and Tib, \LaTeX\ 3 should have
+standard procedures for inter-working with the ``main 5''. Such procedures
+are unlikely to be perfect, but it should be possible to agree on some {\it
+modus vivendi}.%
+\footnote{It is unlikely that the vendors will re-focus their products to
+concentrate on \LaTeX\ users --- and equally unlikely that \LaTeX-ers will
+start to think of themselves as ``wordprocessor users''. Nevertheless,
+with a few minor changes (which might involve the \LaTeX\ end, the
+bibliographic program end and/or the documentation), it should be possible
+for \LaTeX\ 3 and the mainstream bibliographic software to work reasonably
+well together.
+
+``{\it Modus vivendi}\/'', i.e., ``an arrangement between peoples who agree
+to differ'', seems to fit the situation quite well.}
+
+
+\subsubsection{{\it Modus vivendi} with the main 4?}
+\label{modus-vivendi}
+
+Before considering how \LaTeX\ might co-operate with the ``main 4''%
+\footnote{Hopefully, it will be possible to use the same general ideas for
+Library Master when its procedure for ``filling in the in-text citations
+and generating the reference-list'' becomes known.}
+it is convenient to contrast \BibTeX's approach with that of Tib.
+
+\BibTeX's approach involves searching a \LaTeX\ {\tt .aux} file for details
+of in-text citations, and then writing out a {\tt .bbl} file. The {\tt
+.bbl} file defines a reference-list that is read in when \LaTeX\ is next
+applied to the root file.
+
+Tib's approach is different. It starts with a {\tt .tex} file that
+contains ``incomplete or keyed citations'' within citation-delimiters, and
+produces another {\tt .tex} file that contains proper in-text citations
+plus (optionally) a reference-list.
+
+When the procedures used by the ``main 4'' are interpreted in terms of
+\LaTeX, they seem to be more akin to Tib's approach than to \BibTeX's. It
+looks as though the end-user would start with a {\tt .tex} file containing
+keys, etc., within citation-delimiters, and use the bibliography-formatting
+program to produce a near-duplicate {\tt .tex} file that contains proper
+in-text citations plus a reference-list.
+
+In fact, Tib's citation-delimiters are chosen so that:
+\begin{quote}
+The escape characters of Tib do not interfere with \TeX\ processing. If
+\TeX\ is applied to the original pre-Tib document, the escape characters
+and incomplete citations will appear as written.
+\end{quote}
+I.e., the pre-Tib {\tt .tex} file and the post-Tib {\tt .tex} file are both
+valid \LaTeX\ input files.
+
+This seems a useful precedent. If \LaTeX\ could inter-work with the ``main
+4'' in an analogous way, it would not be necessary to
+\begin{quote}
+Apply bibliography-formatting software.\\
+Then apply \LaTeX.
+\end{quote}
+every time that a {\tt .dvi} file is required. For example, if someone is
+concentrating on getting their equations typeset correctly, they might want
+to get {\tt .dvi} files quickly without always having to go through the
+bibliography-formatting step. At the equation-checking stage, they may
+just want a {\tt .dvi} file that shows their equations, and not be worried
+about the appearance of their in-text citations or reference-list.
+
+A potential problem for any \LaTeX-er trying to follow the Tib precedent,
+is that EndNote and ProCite use \verb+#+ to identify ``number within
+database''. Hence the end-user may need to put a \verb+#+ (which is one of
+\LaTeX's 10 ``special characters'') within the relevant
+citation-delimiters. (See Table \ref{analogues} for details of the
+programs' default citation-delimiters, and the alternatives available.)
+
+\begin{table}
+
+\begin{center}
+\begin{footnotesize}
+
+\begin{tabular}{lll}
+\hline\hline
+Software & Citation & Notes \\
+ & delimiters & \\
+\hline\hline
+\LaTeX\ 2.09 with \BibTeX & {\tt \bs cite\{\ \}} & \\
+\hline
+Tib & {\tt [.\ .]} &
+ The delimiters {\tt <.\ .>} are used \\
+ & & in some circumstances \\
+\hline
+EndNote & Default: {\tt [\ ]} &
+ You can tell EndNote to look for alternative \\
+ & & 1-character delimiters (e.g., {\tt <\ >}).\\
+\hline
+Library Master & Not known &
+ I understand that a facility for ``given \\
+ & & the in-text citations, compile a \\
+ & & reference-list'' is in preparation. \\
+\hline
+Papyrus & Default: {\tt \%\%\ \%\%} &
+ You can tell Papyrus to look for alternative \\
+ & & delimiters (but ``start delimiter'' must \\
+ & & be the same as ``end delimiter'') \\
+\hline
+ProCite & Default: {\tt (\ ) } &
+ You can tell ProCite to look \\
+ & & for {\tt [\ ]} rather than for {\tt (\ )}. \\
+\hline
+Reference Manager & Default: {\tt \{\ \}} &
+ You can tell Reference Manager to look \\
+ & & for alternative delimiters. ``Start delimiter'' \\
+ & & and ``end delimiter'' can each have up \\
+ & & to 7 characters. \\
+\hline\hline
+\end{tabular}
+
+\end{footnotesize}
+\end{center}
+
+\caption{Citation-delimiters: defaults and alternatives\label{analogues}}
+
+\end{table}
+
+
+One way of imitating Tib (in spite of the possibility of \verb+#+
+characters) might be to arrange delimiters such that the proprietary
+program's ``start delimiter'' is interpreted by \LaTeX\ as being equivalent
+to \LaTeX\ 2.09's \verb!\verb+!, and its ``end delimiter'' is interpreted
+as equivalent to the \verb!+! that terminates the text introduced by
+\verb!\verb+!. Then:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item
+ If \LaTeX\ is applied to the original {\tt .tex} file, the citation
+ keys will be typeset ``as is'' in a {\tt typewriter} font (to remind
+ the \LaTeX-er that the bibliographic software needs applying before
+ the document can be regarded as finished).
+\item
+ If the bibliographic software is applied to the original {\tt .tex}
+ file, a new {\tt .tex} file will be produced that, when \LaTeX-ed, has
+ proper in-text citations and a reference-list.
+\end{itemize}
+Overall, the \LaTeX-er will be able to apply \LaTeX\ and the bibliographic
+software in either order (in much the same way that \LaTeX\ and Tib can be
+applied in either order).
+
+This approach could be the major element of a {\it modus vivendi} between
+\LaTeX\ 3 and the ``main 4''. Table \ref{choice-of-delimiter} shows some
+delimiters that might be suitable.
+
+\begin{table}
+\begin{center}
+\begin{footnotesize}
+
+\begin{tabular}{llll}
+\hline\hline
+Biblio.\ & Tell bib.\ software & Tell \LaTeX\ 3 & Notes \\
+software \\
+\hline\hline
+EndNote & Delimiters are & {\tt<}\dots{\tt>} is equivalent \\
+ & {\tt <} and {\tt >} & to 2.09's {\tt \bs verb+}\dots{\tt+} \\
+\hline
+Papyrus & Delimiter is {\tt"} & {\tt"}\dots{\tt"} is equivalent \\
+ & & to 2.09's {\tt \bs verb+}\dots{\tt+} \\
+\hline
+ProCite & & & No obvious alternative to ``always \\
+ & & & apply ProCite before \LaTeX'' \\
+\hline
+Reference & Delimiters are &
+ {\tt \bs bsoft\{\dots\}} is equiv.\ to \\
+Manager & {\tt \bs bsoft\{} and {\tt\}} &
+ 2.09's {\tt \bs verb+}\dots{\tt+} \\
+\hline\hline
+\end{tabular} \\[2mm]
+\begin{tabular}{lp{100mm}}
+{\it Note:}
+ & Clearly the default Papyrus and Reference Manager delimiters (see
+ Table \ref{analogues}) must be changed if the end-user is to have the
+ option of applying \LaTeX\ without having previously dealt with
+ citations, etc. However, the Papyrus and Reference Manager keys are
+ not liable to contain a {\tt \#} character. Hence, it is not crucial
+ whether Papyrus and Reference Manager keys are ``hidden'' from \LaTeX.
+\end{tabular}
+
+
+\end{footnotesize}
+\end{center}
+
+\caption{Choice of delimiters for {\it modus vivendi\/}?%
+\label{choice-of-delimiter}}
+\end{table}
+
+A {\it modus vivendi} would also need to incorporate an approach to the
+``root file and {\tt \bs include}-ed files'' situation. Although I don't
+have any specific suggestions at this stage, I speculate that support for
+this feature might be obtained by reference to the bibliographic software's
+support for analogous features in wordprocessors (e.g., WordPerfect's
+``master document and subdocument'' scheme, and Microsoft Word's
+``include'' scheme).
+
+\subsubsection{Preferred interface}
+
+The suggestions in Table \ref{choice-of-delimiter} are intended as part of
+a {\it modus vivendi} between \LaTeX\ 3 and the {\em current} versions of
+the ``main 4''. Although the general approach is the same, the details
+differ from product to product.
+
+It would be open to \LaTeX-ers to decide on a preferred interface, and to
+inform the vendors of their preference in the hope that it may be possible
+to implement the approach more consistently at some time in the future. We
+wouldn't lose anything by asking!
+
+For example, if the preferred interface involved \verb+\bsoft{+{\it
+key\/}\verb+}+ (as shown in Table \ref{choice-of-delimiter} for Reference
+Manager), it would be open to us to ask the other vendors to relax their
+rules on citation-delimiters so that future versions of the ``main 5'' will
+all accept \verb+\bsoft{+{\it key\/}\verb+}+. If we were lucky enough to
+get the vendors' agreement, this might enable us to produce ``using
+proprietary bibliographic software with \LaTeX'' notes that are simpler
+from the \LaTeX\ point-of-view than Table \ref{choice-of-delimiter}.
+
+\paragraph{Note}
+
+It might be possible to have a {\it modus vivendi} (e.g., with Reference
+Manager) involving \verb!\verb+!{\it key\/}\verb!+!, rather than having an
+additional command such as \verb+\bsoft+ (which would, in any case, be
+implemented in much the same way as \verb!\verb!). The bibliographic
+software will probably ignore things within \verb!\verb+! and \verb!+!
+that don't look like citation keys. Nevertheless, I would be inclined to
+introduce an extra command (e.g., \verb+\bsoft+) so that {\tt .tex} files
+can be ``marked up logically'' to distinguish between:
+ \begin{itemize}
+\item delimiters for a key that is intended for processing by
+ bibliographic software
+\item delimiters for text that is intended to appear in a {\tt typewriter}
+ font in the final document.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\subsubsection{Hybrid approaches}
+
+One can envisage schemes that embed a proprietary bibliographic system's
+mechanism for dealing with citations and reference-lists within \LaTeX's
+mechanism or {\it vice versa\/}). Examples might include:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item
+ telling Papyrus to use \verb+!!+ as its delimiter, and putting the
+ Papyrus citation markers inside a \LaTeX\ \verb+\cite+ command, thus
+ \verb+\cite{!!+\dots\verb+!!}+.%
+\footnote{Bernard J. Treves Brown, of Manchester University, is
+experimenting with this technique.}
+
+\item
+ trying to get proprietary bibliographic software to read an {\tt .aux}
+ file, and write a {\tt .bbl} file, as \BibTeX\ does. (Perhaps this
+ could be done by a shell script which invokes the proprietary software
+ in a suitable way.)
+
+\end{itemize}
+
+Generally, I fear that such hybrid schemes may lead to confusion, and I
+would not be inclined to persue them:
+\begin{itemize}
+
+\item
+ Anyone constructing a hybrid scheme will have to be very careful about
+ ``which software is in charge when'' (e.g., whether citation numbers
+ are incremented by \LaTeX, by the proprietary system, or by ``one
+ shadowing the other''). The hybrid scheme will need maintenance
+ (e.g., someone will need to verify that the scheme still works with
+ each new release of the proprietary system). There may be three lots
+ of documentation for the end-user to study: that about \LaTeX\ 3, that
+ about the proprietary system, and that about the hybrid scheme's
+ subtle combination of elements of both. If anything goes wrong, it
+ may be in ``a grey area'', which is neither the responsibility of the
+ \LaTeX\ 3 project, nor the responsibility of the bibliographic
+ software vendor.
+
+\item
+ The proprietary systems seem more akin to Tib than to \BibTeX. To try
+ and force them into the \BibTeX\ sterotype when they are not designed
+ to work like \BibTeX\ seems like ``asking for trouble''. I doubt
+ whether the \TeX\ community has the resources to produce interfaces
+ that ``make proprietary systems work like \BibTeX'', and I doubt
+ whether the vendors have the inclination to commit such resources.
+
+\end{itemize}
+
+My instinct is that it would be better to have a simple interface (e.g.,
+conventions such as those outlined in Table \ref{choice-of-delimiter}), so
+as to put the end-user in a situation where responsibilities are clear:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item
+ Typesetting is the responsibility of \LaTeX\ 3.
+\item
+ Bibliography-generation is the responsibility of the bibliographic
+ software.
+\end{itemize}
+
+Hence, if using a proprietary bibliographic system, the end-user should
+ignore the \LaTeX\ 3 manual's descriptions of commands to support the
+DIY-er (i.e, ignore the \LaTeX\ commands envisaged in section \ref{DIY}),
+and ignore anything that is provided to support the \BibTeX-er.
+\begin{itemize}
+
+\item
+ The proprietary system will be ``in charge'' of bibliography
+ generation. The method used will be that envisaged by the vendor, and
+ documented in the vendor's manual: if it's good, the vendor will get
+ the credit; if it's bad, the vendor will get the blame.
+
+\item
+ The delimiters in the {\tt .tex} file will be delimiters for the
+ proprietary system (chosen, if possible, in such a way that the {\tt
+ .tex} file as acceptable to \LaTeX\ even before processing by the
+ proprietary system.) They might be as shown in Table
+ \ref{choice-of-delimiter}. The ``keys'', etc., inside the delimiters
+ will follow the rules given in the vendor's manual ({\em not} the
+ rules given in the \LaTeX\ 3 manual about keys that the DIY-er can
+ use.)
+
+\item
+ The proprietary system will be ``told to produce \TeX\ output''. How
+ good or bad they are at this will be the responsibility of the
+ proprietary system (although interested \LaTeX-ers might advise the
+ vendors about what is required).
+\end{itemize}
+Overall, the end-user will get in-text citations filled in, and reference
+lists generated, in the standard way that is described in the manual that
+describes the proprietary system. If this standard way does not suit a
+\LaTeX-er's requirements, it may be better for the him/her to seek
+alternative bibliography-formatting software rather than spending time
+trying to circumvent the problems.
+
+Of course, if people want to put effort into developing hybrid schemes, and
+happen to get good {\it modus vivendi} between \LaTeX\ and proprietary
+bibliographic systems, I would be delighted to find that my instinct is
+wrong!
+
+\subsubsection{The user's choice}
+
+Given some {\it modus vivendi}, end-users would be able to make their own
+assessments of which bibliographic software suits their needs.
+\begin{itemize}
+
+\item Cost is obviously a factor.
+
+\item
+ An end-user who wants software that has been designed specifically for
+ use in conjunction with \LaTeX, will probably be inclined to choose
+ \BibTeX\ or Tib.
+
+\item
+ \BibTeX's approach makes good use of disk-space. A {\tt .bbl} file
+ will be smaller than ``near-duplicates of {\tt .tex} files''.
+
+\item
+ An end-user who wants ready-made methods of downloading information
+ from commercial bibliographic databases, library catalogues, etc.,
+ will probably favour one of the proprietary programs. The proprietary
+ systems also offer database administration and searching facilities.
+
+\item
+ Anyone who does not have the time and patience to deduce (from a
+ proprietary system's wordprocessor-oriented documentation/menus) what
+ the \LaTeX-er should do might prefer to wait until someone else has
+ deduced what is required, and has documented the tricks involved.
+
+\item
+ The end-user's choice may be constrained by the platform on which they
+ are using \LaTeX\ (e.g., they may need bibliographic software for a
+ Unix system).
+
+\item
+ Wordprocessor-oriented systems may not support typesetting subleties
+ to the degree that \LaTeX-ers would like.
+
+\item
+ Support (or lack of it) for non-English languages may be another
+ factor.%
+\footnote{Decisions may be needed about whether to try using a proprietary
+system's support for diacritics, in the hope of being able to share a
+database with colleagues who use wordprocessors. The alternative would be
+to have database entries that use \TeX\ encoding for diacritics.}
+
+\item
+ End-users may be constrained to use the same system as other people in
+ their research group (e.g., so that the group can share databases).
+\end{itemize}
+
+It is unlikely that anyone will find bibliographic software that is perfect
+for their needs. However, people are more likely to find something that
+suits them if they have a choice than if they have no choice.
+
+
+\subsection{OR for \LaTeX\ 3}
+
+Given the situation outlined in section \ref{background}, I suggest the
+following as the OR for \LaTeX\ 3's relationship with
+bibliography-formatting software:
+\begin{itemize}
+
+\item
+ As far as practicable, \LaTeX\ 3 should be neutral towards the
+ end-user's choice of bibligraphy-formatting software. Ideally, people
+ should be able to choose typesetting software for typesetting reasons,
+ and bibliographic software for bibliographic reasons --- their choice
+ of typesetting software should not restrict their choice of
+ bibliographic software.
+\item
+ Hence, a {\it modus vivendi} between \LaTeX\ 3 and each of the
+ ``main 5'' should be thought up, tested and documented.%
+\footnote{The {\it modus vivendi} might be along the lines shown in Table
+\ref{choice-of-delimiter}, or might be something else that emerges from
+practical experience. It doesn't matter much whether the documentation is
+provided by the \LaTeX\ 3 project or by the bibliography software vendor,
+as long as someone provides it!}
+
+\item
+ There might be ``a preferred interface'' between \LaTeX\ 3 and
+ proprietary bibliographic software. It vendors can be persuaded to
+ support this interface, \LaTeX-ers will get a consistent interface to
+ proprietary bibliographic software. If not, things will stay
+ inconsistent (e.g., as shown in Table \ref{choice-of-delimiter}).
+
+\item
+ In line with the neutrality suggested above, \BibTeX\ will continue to
+ be supported, but \LaTeX\ 3 documentation will not be particularly
+ pro-\BibTeX. It is desirable that {\tt .bst} files should be updated
+ so that \BibTeX\ produces \LaTeX\ 3 commands (designed to satisfy the
+ requirements listed in section \ref{DIY}) rather than \LaTeX\ 2.09
+ commands.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\section{Miscellaneous}
+\label{misc}
+
+\subsection{``Local names'' for keys}
+
+If you are ``doing it yourself'', choice of keys is unlikely to be a
+problem. For example, you could equally well use {\tt lamport-86} or {\tt
+latexbook} as a key for the \LaTeX\ manual. There is no particular need
+for consistency from one document to another: you can use {\tt lamport-86}
+as the key in one document, and use {\tt latexbook} as the key in another.
+
+However, if you have a large bibliographic database (perhaps shared with a
+group of colleagues), it may be impracticable to keep track of keys
+assigned on an {\it ad hoc} basis, and difficult to guarantee that keys
+will stay unique whenever a new item is added to the database.
+
+Moreover, a {\tt .tex} file to be \verb+\input+ may contain bibliographic
+details and \LaTeX\ commands that are generated automatically by
+bibliographic software (even though \LaTeX\ will have no way of
+distinguishing the file from a one typed in by a DIY-er). Such
+bibliographic software might be programmed to assign keys automatically.
+For example, software might write a {\tt .tex} file that contains \LaTeX\
+2.09 \verb+\bibitem+ commands, with keys of the form {\tt lamport-86}
+constructed automatically from two fields in the database.%
+\footnote{Some thought would need giving to any method of assigning keys
+automatically. If a bibliographic database is continually growing, there
+may be no guarantee that keys of the form {\tt lamport-86} will stay unique
+when new items are added to the database. It might be safer to assign less
+memorable keys that can be guaranteed to stay distinct, e.g., the ``record
+number'' in the database, or a book's ISBN.}
+
+To help cater for such situations, it might be useful if \LaTeX\ 3 allowed
+``local names'' for keys, i.e., some mechanism whereby an author could
+declare (e.g., in a document's root file) that, for the duration of a
+document, a particular ``informal key'' (to be used in in-text citation
+commands) should be treated as a synonym for a ``formal key'' (which
+appears in an entry in an automatically generated reference-list). For
+example, it might be useful to be able to declare that {\tt latexbook} can
+be used as a ``local name'' for {\tt lamport-86}.
+
+
+\subsection{Reference-lists that are also indexes}
+
+Another requirement that needs to be borne in mind is for reference-lists
+which, as well as providing bibliographic details of sources, provide an
+index to the pages on which the sources are cited:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item
+ in mainstream academic publications, the requirement will probably be
+ for a ``combined list of references and author index'' \cite[pp.\ 198
+ \& 258]{butcher-92}
+\item
+ in law books, the requirement is usually for ``front matter'' units
+ such as ``table of cases'', ``table of statutes'' and ``table of
+ treaties''. In a typical ``table of cases'', each entry
+ tells the reader
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item where further details of the case can be found
+ (e.g., the relevant law report)
+ \item which pages in the book's main text mention the case.
+ \end{itemize}
+ The other types of tables are analogous.
+\end{itemize}
+
+
+\appendix
+\section{Some suppliers of mainstream bibliographic software}
+\label{suppliers}
+
+
+\begin{description}
+
+\item[EndNote]
+ Niles and Associates. 2000 Hearst St, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA.
+ E-mail: {\tt nilesinc@well.sf.ca.us}.
+% UK agents: Cherwell Scientific, 27 Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1HU.
+% Tel: 0865 794884. A couple of Cherwell people have JANET addresses
+% --- {\tt hodgkina@oxford.vax} is one, I think.
+
+\item[Library
+ Master] Balboa Software, P. O. Box 3145, Station D, Willowdale,
+ Ontario, M2R 3G5, Canada. E-mail: {\tt hahne@epas.utoronto.ca}.
+% No UK agent that I know of.
+% Current version just does reference-lists. Next version
+% should do in-text citations, so they say.
+
+\item[Papyrus]
+ Research Software Design, 2718 S. W. Kelly St, Suite 181, Portland,
+ Oregon 97201, USA. E-mail: {\tt RSD@applelink.apple.com}.
+% UK agents: Paul Tharagonnet, European Scientific Software Company,
+% Britannia Centre, Point Pleasant, Tyne and Wear, NE28 6HQ. Tel:
+% 091-295 3000
+
+\item[ProCite]
+ Personal Bibliographic Software, P. O. Box 4250, Ann Arbor, Michigan
+ 48106. E-mail: \verb+sales@pbsinc.com+ or \verb+support@pbsinc.com+.
+% European Office: PBS. Woodside, Hinksey Hill, Oxford OX1 5AU. Tel:
+% 0865 326612. There's a UK user group --- I think some official
+% (secretary?) is at Birmingham University somewhere (probably in the
+% library). I've forgotten the details.
+
+\item[Reference
+ Manager] Research Information Systems, Camino Corporate Center, 2355
+ Camino Vida Roble, Carlsbad, CA 92009, USA. E-mail: {\tt
+ sales@ris.risinc.com}.
+% John Cox (Royal Free) thinks the ``best people in the UK'' for RefMan
+% stuff are: Bilaney Consultants, St. Julians, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN15
+% 0RX. Tel. 0732 450002. Also sold by: Microinfo, P. O. Box 3,
+% Omega Park, Alton, Hants, GU34 2PG. Tel: 0420 86848.
+
+\end{description}
+
+
+\section{E-mail discussion lists about bibliographic software}
+\label{discussion-lists}
+
+The {\tt bibsoft} list provides a forum for general discussion
+of personal bibliographic database management systems. You can subscribe
+by sending a one-line e-mail message of the form\\
+{\tt subscribe bibsoft last-name,first-name}\\
+to\\
+{\tt listserv@indycms.iupui.edu}.
+
+There are also specific discussion lists for EndNote, Library Master and
+ProCite. See \cite{stigleman-93}.
+
+In the United Kingdom, there is a discussion list for Higher Education
+institutions that have taken up the {\sc chest} Papyrus deal. You can
+subscribe by sending a one-line message of the form\\
+{\tt subscribe chest-papyrus first-name last-name}\\
+to\\
+{\tt mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk}.
+
+\begin{thebibliography}{10}
+
+\bibitem{lamport-86}
+Leslie Lamport.
+\newblock {\em \LaTeX: A Document Preparation System}.
+\newblock Addison-Wesley, 1986.
+
+\bibitem{harvard-law}
+{\em The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation}.
+\newblock Harvard Law Review Association, 15th edition, 1991.
+\newblock Obtainable from: Harvard Law Review Association, 1511 Massachusetts
+ Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.
+
+\bibitem{iso-690}
+Documentation --- bibliographic references --- content, form and structure.
+\newblock ISO 690, International Organization for Standardization, 1987.
+
+\bibitem{bennett-93}
+Frank~G. Bennett, Jr.
+\newblock {Lexi\TeX}: a {\LaTeX} macro package for lawyers.
+\newblock Document deposited in electronic archives, 1993.
+
+\bibitem{butcher-92}
+Judith Butcher.
+\newblock {\em Copy-editing}.
+\newblock Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, 1992.
+
+\bibitem{apa-83}
+{\em Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association}.
+\newblock American Psychological Association, 3rd edition, 1983.
+\newblock Obtainable from: American Psychological Association, P. O. Box 2710,
+ Hyattsville, MD 20784.
+
+\bibitem{chicago-82}
+{\em The {C}hicago Manual of Style}.
+\newblock University of Chicago Press, 13th edition, 1982.
+
+\bibitem{acs-86}
+Janet~S. Dodd.
+\newblock {\em The ACS Style Guide}.
+\newblock American Chemical Society, 1986.
+
+\bibitem{mhra-91}
+{\em MHRA Style Book}.
+\newblock Modern Humanities Research Association, 4th edition, 1991.
+
+\bibitem{mla-88}
+Joseph Gibaldi and Walter~S. Achtert, editors.
+\newblock {\em MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers}.
+\newblock Modern Language Association of America, 3rd edition, 1988.
+
+\bibitem{vancouver-91}
+International~Committee of~Medical Journal~Editors.
+\newblock Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical
+ journals.
+\newblock {\em British Medical Journal}, 302:340--341, February 1991.
+\newblock Note: This article was also published in the {\it New England Journal
+ of Medicine} (7th Feb.\ 1991). It specifies the ``Vancouver style'' for
+ manuscript-preparation, which is accepted by over 400 journals.
+
+\bibitem{bs-5605}
+Citing publications by bibliographic references.
+\newblock BS 5605, British Standards Institution, 1978.
+
+\bibitem{bs-1629}
+References to published materials.
+\newblock BS 1629, British Standards Institution, 1989.
+
+\bibitem{bs-6371}
+Citation of unpublished documents.
+\newblock BS 6371, British Standards Institution, 1983.
+
+\bibitem{patashnik-88}
+Oren Patashnik.
+\newblock {BibTeXing}.
+\newblock Document deposited in electronic archives, January 1988.
+
+\bibitem{alexander-89}
+James~C. Alexander.
+\newblock Tib: A {\TeX} bibliographic preprocessor.
+\newblock Document deposited in electronic archives, 1989.
+
+\bibitem{stigleman-93}
+Sue Stigleman.
+\newblock Bibliography formatting software: an update.
+\newblock {\em Database}, February 1993.
+
+\end{thebibliography}
+
+\end{document}