diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'info/digests/texline/no10/rose.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | info/digests/texline/no10/rose.tex | 56 |
1 files changed, 56 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/info/digests/texline/no10/rose.tex b/info/digests/texline/no10/rose.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..2f706e2f84 --- /dev/null +++ b/info/digests/texline/no10/rose.tex @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +\let\BiBTeX\BibTeX +\centerline{\bf \TeX89\ looks at \LaTeXbf\ tools} +\smallskip\noindent +Several discussion and `birds of a feather' groups were organised at the +Karlsruhe \TeX89 meeting. Our discussion group considered indexing and +bibliographies. We were in fair agreement over indexing. At the moment +neither |makeindex| nor |makeidx| works on a PC for a document long enough to +need an index: PC versions are needed. Other desirable enhancements include: +international language support (such as \"a if |german.sty| has been used); +options to specify how to alphabetize in languages where there is more than one +convention (for example, there are three possible positions for \"a in German); +certain constants to be made bigger; user's choice of delimiter characters, as +with |\verb|. Other complaints apply more generally to software being passed +around the \TeX\ community: it should be written in lines of no more than 72 +characters (because of email problems); only a very standard subset of C should +be used; the authors should be accessible. A wish-list was prepared, which +will be sent to the authors of |makeindex| and |makeidx| if we can find them. + +There was much less consensus over what is currently possible or easy in +\BiBTeX\ and what are reasonable enhancements to ask for. Clearly, some people +like programming in reverse Polish while others seem to find it extraordinarily +difficult. We did agree that it would be useful to have matters as the ordering +of the items, the type of key used, the ordering of words within the items, and +the language used for words like `edition', could be easily changed +independently. International language support is also needed. + +Although we agreed that all standard fields should be pre-declared in standard +\BiBTeX, so that everyone uses them in the same way, we did not agree on what +we thought was standard. Each of the following was supported by at least one +person in the group: ISBN number; price of book; title of author, such as `Dr' +or `S J'; `contribution to discussion of Important Paper X by J Smith' -- but +are any of these really that standard? This led on to a discussion of whether +it was really sensible to use \BiBTeX\ as a database, in which case it needs a +front end to help secretaries input the entries (Anne Br\"uggemann-Klein has +written one), or whether it is better to use an established database and get it +to write |.bib| files (my preference). + +Our course, getting \BiBTeX\ to be all things to all people also involves making +|\cite| more flexible. For some journals, |\cite| needs to put the title in a +footnote on the first occurrence only; for others, it must put the author(s) +and year in the text, but with punctuation depending on whether one is already +inside parentheses; for yet others, if a book is cited only once the cited page +number(s) must go in the bibliography rather than the text. Is it reasonable to +be able to expect any usable program to be able to do all this? To my mind, +having an editable |.bbl| file is a huge plus. + +Anne Br\"uggemann-Klein agreed to compile a wish-list and send it to Oren +Patashnik before he finishes his current work on \BiBTeX. I hope we do not give +the impression that we are not grateful for what has already been done. +Although many people in the group sounded indignant that \BiBTeX\ would not +do exactly what they wanted, it seems to me to be such an improvement over +both `doing it yourself' (Lamport, Section 4.3.1) and using generic commands +like |\writer| and |\paper|, defined in each style-file (cf. Spivak, Appendix B) +that I, for one, am simply delighted that I have \BiBTeX. + +\rightline{\sl Rosemary Bailey} |