summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/info/digests/texline/no13/rhead.txt
blob: c5802b598f6c255d566c56cd22f6f6857565bfe6 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
%  David Rhead
%  (JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme)
%

\begingroup
\def\Blatex{{\bf L\kern-.30em\raise.3ex\hbox{\scb A}\kern-.15em\TeX}}  
\def\Bbibtex{{\bf B{\scb IB}\kern-.2em\TeX}}
\def\ttbackslash{{\tt\char'134}}
\def\bs{\tt\char'134}
\def\cite#1{[#1]}
\def\label#1{{\it #1}}
\let\ref\relax
\let\protect\relax
\def\hline{\noalign{\hrule}}
\def\item#1{\par\hangindent1em\hangafter1{\noindent
\hbox to 1em{\hfil#1\hfil}}}
\def\itemitem#1{\par\hangindent2em\hangafter1{\noindent
\hbox to 2em{\quad\hfil#1\hfil}}}
\def\bi{\item{$\bullet$}}
\def\rtr{$\triangleright$}

\def\description{\begingroup
\def\item[##1]{\par\hangindent20pt{\noindent\bf##1}}}%
\def\enddescription{\endgroup}
\def\section#1{\medskip\goodbreak\leftline{%
\let\BibTeX\Bbibtex\let\LaTeX\Blatex
\bf#1}\par\noindent\ignorespaces}
\def\subsection#1{\smallskip\goodbreak\leftline{$\bullet$\fib#1}\par
\noindent\ignorespaces}
\def\subsubsection#1{\smallskip\goodbreak\leftline{\fib#1}\noindent\ignorespaces}


\title{How might \LaTeXbf3 deal}
\centerline{\bf with citations and reference-lists?}
\section{I Introduction} 
Since there are now plans for a new version of \LaTeX\
\cite{1,2}, this may be a
good time to consider how a future version should deal with citations and
reference-lists.
 
My viewpoint is that of an advisor to authors who use \LaTeX\ 2.09.
I am often in the position of having to decide whether \LaTeX\
acts inappropriately or whether an  author is asking for something
inappropriate.  Often I have the impression that \LaTeX\  sometimes
makes it unnecessarily difficult for people to comply with the conventions that
are standard in `academic publishing'.
 
In making the suggestions that follow, I do realise that it's easier for me
to suggest that the volunteers developing \LaTeX3 might provide some new
facilities than it is for a volunteer to find time to do the work! 
I assume that the reader is familiar with the relevant sections of
Lamport's {\sl\LaTeXsl, A Document Preparation System}.
 
\section{II Conventions to be supported}
\subsection{II(i) Citation schemes}
In mainstream publishing
\cite{3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12}, there seem to be three basic schemes for
citations and the corresponding reference-lists: 
{\description 
\item[reference by number]  In this scheme, citations are
normally numbered in order of first citation.  In particular, `order of first
citation' is used by over 300 biomedical journals \cite{8,9}, and is specified
in the ISO standard \cite{10}.  (Thus, in \BibTeX\ terms, the usual
numbering sequence is that given by {\tt unsrt}.)  The number is used as a
`label' in the reference-list. 
\item[author-date]~There are two main forms of
citation, depending on whether
      or not the cited author's name occurs naturally in a sentence.  In the
      first case, the citation is of the form \hbox{`\ \dots\ (1972)
      \dots\ '}, whereas in the second case it is of the form \hbox{`\ \dots\
      (Crane, 1972) \dots\ '}.  There are no `labels' in the
      reference-list, which is arranged in alphabetical order of authors'
      surnames (with supplementary rules for `tie-breaking').
\item[short form]~The `short form' scheme is often used when citations
      occur in footnotes.  Typically, the first citation (or the first
      citation in the current chapter) gives a fairly full reference but
      subsequent citations use a short form.  The `short form' may be
      introduced within the first citation, or given in a table of
      abbreviations.  There are no `labels' in the reference-list,
      which may be subdivided by `type of cited document'.
      The scheme is common in the humanities, but also seems to be used by
      some software-houses when referring to their own publications (see, for
      example, \cite{13}).

\enddescription}

\noindent
I think it is desirable that \LaTeX\ should provide explicit support for
all three citation schemes, in order to make it straightforward to achieve the
effects that people routinely achieve with traditional publishing procedures.
 
Notice that:
\item{\rtr}It is not, in general, possible to convert a document from one
scheme
      to another (for example, from `reference by number' to author-date)
      automatically.  Some re-writing is required.
\item{\rtr}The number of items of information that need to be available
      differ between the schemes.  For a `reference by number'
      citation, it is only necessary to keep track of one item
      (the number), whereas for the other schemes it is necessary to keep
      track of more than one item (that is, the author and the date, or the
      `fairly full form' and the `short form')
      so that they can be used separately.
\item{\rtr}Occasionally, two different schemes may be used in parallel
      within the same document. (For example, in \cite{13},
      a software-house seems to use `short form' when citing
      its own publications, but author-date when citing other publications.)

\noindent
Thus, it seems to me that the three schemes are best regarded as logically
distinct.
 
However, within a particular scheme, there are variations of punctuation, etc.,
that can be regarded as matters of `house style'.
For example, some journals that have adopted a `reference by number'
scheme use bracketed numerals for citations, while others use superscripts.
Such variations can be accommodated by differences between style files.
 
\subsection{II(ii) Additional references}
In addition to a list of `works cited', some documents
have an additional reference-list that specifies `further reading'
or `all sources consulted' (see \cite{5,~pp182 \& 192}),
\cite{8,~p40} and \cite{8,~p22}).  There needs to be
some provision for typesetting such additional lists.
 
 
\section{III Deficiencies in \LaTeX\ 2.09}
\subsection{III(i) Citations}
When used in conjunction with \BibTeX\ and |\bibliographystyle{unsrt}|,
\LaTeX\ 2.09 makes a good job of organising citations (and sorting the
corresponding reference-list) according to the `reference by number'
scheme as required by many journals.
 
Generally, however, \LaTeX\ 2.09 does not provide the breadth or depth
of facilities needed to support the variety of requirements for
mainstream publishing:

\item{\rtr}It is unfortunate that the `reference by number' sequence obtained
      most naturally by the do-it-yourself-er \cite{1,~p73} from
      \LaTeX\ 2.09 (`order of appearance within {\tt thebibliography}')
      is unlikely to be what the do-it-yourself-er's journal-editor requires
      (which will usually be `order of first citation').  The
      do-it-yourself-er is given no warning (either in the manual or by
      the software) that sorting is likely to be needed.
\item{\rtr}Although one can use style-options such as {\tt apalike} and
      {\tt aaai} to re-define |\cite| and {\tt thebibliography}
      for an author-date scheme, there are many obstacles placed in the
      user's way:
      \itemitem{$\star$}The existence of the style-options is not documented
in
            \cite{1}.
      \itemitem{$\star$}If one finds a style-option  in a (software) archive,
it
            may need modification to produce the precise effect required.
      \itemitem{$\star$}It is not obvious how one should refer separately to
two
            items (author and date) supplied via a |\bibitem| argument
            originally designed for one.  The do-it-yourself-er might
            have to study style files such as {\tt aaai.sty} and {\tt bbl}
            files such as those produced by {\tt aaai-named.bst} to
            deduce how to do this.
\item{\rtr}The `short form' scheme seems unsupported.
\item{\rtr}At certain points in a document, an author my need to cite
      several works at once.  It may be necessary to specify a
      page (or section, etc.) for each work.  For instance,
      \cite{6,~p404} suggests references of the form
      `(Kelley 1896a, 10; Kelley 1896b; Kelley 1907, 3)'.
      This is not easy in \LaTeX\ 2.09, since |\cite|'s
      optional argument applies to the citation as a whole.  The
      author cannot supply a separate `optional argument'
      for each work.  (By contrast, {\sf EndNote}'s analogous facilities
      \cite{15,~p58} seem to allow each individual work
      to be given its own `additional text'.)
\item{\rtr}It does not seem easy to use different schemes in parallel
      within the same document.  If |\cite| and
      {\tt thebibliography} are defined as required for one scheme,
      they will usually be unsuitable for any other.
 
\subsection{III(ii) Additional references}
As stated in section \ref{II(ii)} an author may need to
typeset a list of `further reading' etc., in addition to
the usual list of `works cited'.
 
If using the {\tt thebibliography} environment from one of \LaTeX\
2.09's standard styles for such additional references, an author will be
faced with the following problems:
\item{\rtr}the title will be the same as that for the list of `works
      cited', namely `References' for {\tt article} and
      `Bibliography' for {\tt report} and {\tt book}
\item{\rtr}the `labels' (which may be appropriate in the list
      of `works cited', particularly for the `reference
      by number' scheme) will also appear in the
      additional list (where they are inappropriate), because
      both lists use the same definition of |\bibitem|
\item{\rtr}by default, the `labels' will not be unique, since
      the `works cited' list and the `additional references'
      list will both be numbered from one
\item{\rtr}it will be necessary to supply dummy {\it cite-key\/}s,
      purely to satisfy the syntax required for a |\bibitem|.
 
\subsection{III(iii) Other problems}
The definitions of the {\tt thebibliography} environment in \LaTeX\
2.09's standard styles:
\item{\rtr}issue either a |\section*| or a |\chapter*| command,
      using a {\it heading} of `References'for {\tt article}
      and `Bibliography' for {\tt report} and {\tt book}
\item{\rtr}set {\it left-head\/} and {\it right-head\/} to either
      `REFERENCES' or `BIBLIOGRAPHY'
\item{\rtr}do not arrange for a table-of-contents entry.

\noindent
These definitions can cause problems when the {\it heading}, etc.\
supplied by the standard style is inappropriate, or when a table-of-contents
entry is desired.
Admittedly, anyone who doesn't like the standard styles is free to
take copies of the style files and modify them to suit their requirements.
However, I have the impression that:
\item{\rtr}among people who are competent to modify style files,
      modification of these aspects of the standard styles is `the
      rule' rather than `the exception'
\item{\rtr}those \LaTeX\ users who aren't particularly computer-literate
      find the whole business mysterious, and seek out support staff
      who have to modify these aspects of the style files for them.

\noindent
Overall, this seems to be an area where \LaTeX\ 2.09 is failing to
`free people from formatting concerns to allow them to
concentrate on writing'\cite{1,~p8}.
 
An associated problem is that modified style files may no longer be
compatible with standard utilities such as {\tt lablst}.
 
\section{IV Introduction of new facilities}
It has been decided \cite{2} that \LaTeX3
 will be compatible with \LaTeX\ 2.09 input files.  Thus, in particular,
\LaTeX3 must define |\cite| and |thebibliography| so that they
have the same effect on \LaTeX\ 2.09 input files as the \LaTeX\ 2.09
definitions do.  This implies that it would be difficult for \LaTeX3 to
(for example) define |\cite| so that there can be an optional argument
for each work in a multiple citation and define |\bibitem| so that it can
have an `author' argument and a `date' argument.
 
It therefore seems best to provide duplicates of the \LaTeX\ 2.09 facilities
in \LaTeX3 (for `backwards compatibility') but to attempt to
provide new commands/environments in parallel so as to provide the required
functionality.  The new facilities would be regarded as the `normal'
facilities, would be described in the body of the successor to \cite{1},
 and
would be the natural choice for new users.  The old facilities would be
regarded as `deprecated' and relegated to an appendix of the successor
to \cite{1}.
 
Thus we can have both backwards compatibility and improved facilities
for the future.
 
\section{V Division of labour}
\subsection{V(i) Details needed for document `as a whole'} 
The three basic citation schemes mentioned in section \ref{II(i)}
determine certain details of a document `as a whole'.  For each
citation, there must be an entry in a reference-list.  Each entry in
the relevant reference-list must have associated information that can be
used in citations.
 
\subsection{V(ii) Details needed for reference-list, etc.} 
There are a lot of other details that need to be resolved.
 
The information within each reference-list entry will probably need
formatting according to certain rules of `house style'.
The information given in citations needs organising in a consistent way
(particularly for the `short form' scheme).
 
Different people may want to assemble their reference-lists in different ways.
Some people may wish to `do it themselves' \cite{1,~p73} from
a physical card-index, while some may prefer to use \BibTeX\ to get details
from a {\tt bib} file.  In some disciplines,~proprietary systems such as
{\sf EndNote} \cite{15} seem popular (because they help the user to search
a database for literature to cite, as well as helping the user
incorporate details of the literature into a document).
Researchers may also wish to incorporate material obtained by searching
details held on a {\sc cd-rom}.
 
A reference-list generally needs sorting into a particular order.  Since the
list may occupy several pages, I assume that any sorting is best done outside
\LaTeX, either by other software (e.g., \BibTeX) or manually by the author.
 
\subsection{V(iii) \LaTeX\ and other software}
It seems best to regard the movement of text-strings (e.g., an author's
surname) within the `document as a whole' as a task that is distinct
from the arrangement of details within the text-strings, and to assume a
`division of labour' in which the former task is performed by \LaTeX\
while the latter is performed by some other software or manually by the author.
The `division of labour' between \LaTeX\ 2.09 and \BibTeX\ seems to set
a good precedent.
 
This division of labour will lead to modular software.  Once the
interface between a reference-list and the rest of the document has
been defined,~people can use \LaTeX\ for the body of their document,
but can:

\item{\rtr}experiment with different software (\BibTeX, {\sf EndNote})
      for formatting the details of their reference-lists
\item{\rtr}enhance the other software (e.g., \BibTeX) independently
      of enhancements to \LaTeX.
\item{\rtr}lay their reference-lists out manually if they prefer.
 

\section{VI \LaTeX3: A possible user interface?}
\subsection{VI(i) Specifications and names}
If the reasoning given in sections \ref{II}, \ref{IV}
and \ref{V} is accepted, consideration needs to be given to
the form that new commands/environments should take in order to support the
three basic citation schemes, and to provide facilities for `additional
references'.  In particular, it will be necessary to choose
names other than |\cite|, {\tt thebibliography} and |\bibitem| (since
these names will be kept for the facilities provided for compatibility with
\LaTeX\ 2.09).
 
 
\subsection{VI(ii) Four sets of commands/environments}
It seems to me that it would probably be convenient to have three sets of
commands/environments for dealing with citations and the corresponding
reference-lists, each set specifically designed to implement a particular
citation scheme.  Having three such sets gives scope for taking proper
account of the peculiarities of each scheme, without having one scheme
adversely affected by the peculiarities of another.
 
To avoid the difficulties mentioned in section \ref{III(ii)},
it might also be worth having a specific environment for
`additional references'.
 
\LaTeX3 might, for example, have commands/environments as specified
in  table 1.

\topinsert 
\hsize6.5in
\centerline{\offinterlineskip
\vbox{\halign{\strut#\hfil&\hfil#\hfil&\hfil#\hfil&\hfil#\hfil&\hfil#\hfil\cr
\hline
                    &  Citation        & Environment for & Entry in           \cr
                    &                  & reference-list  & reference-list     \cr
\hline
Reference by number &  \bs numcite & {\tt numrefs}   & \bs numentry    \cr
\hline
Author-date         &  \bs dcite
                                       & {\tt adrefs}    & \bs adentry    \cr
                    &  \bs adcite &                 &                 \cr
\hline
Short form          &  \bs firstcite  & {\tt sfrefs}    & \bs sfentry     \cr
                    &  \bs sfcite &              &                     \cr
\hline
Additional references&    --         &  {\tt morerefs} & \bs moreentry \cr
\hline
{\it Analogue at 2.09} &  \bs cite & {\tt thebibliography}
                                                          & \bs bibitem   \cr
\hline
}}}
\caption{Table 1: suggested specifications for commands\slash environments
in \Blatex3}
\bigskip
\hrule height1pt depth1pt\bigskip \endinsert
 
Here it is assumed that:
\item{\rtr}|\numcite| and |\numentry| have {\it key-list} and
      {\it cite-key} (respectively) as their only mandatory arguments.
\item{\rtr}|\dcite| and |\adcite| have {\it key-list} as argument.
      |\dcite| gives a citation of the form (1972),
      while |\adcite| gives a citation of the form (Crane, 1972).
      |\adentry| has three arguments: the {\it cite-key},
      the author (e.g., Crane), and the date (e.g., 1972).
\item{\rtr}|\firstcite| and |\sfcite| have {\it key-list} as argument.
      |\firstcite| gives the form of citation to be used when a work
      is first mentioned.  |\sfcite| gives the short form
      to be used in subsequent citations.
      The arguments of
      |\sfentry| might include: the {\it cite-key}, the form
      of reference to be used at the first citation, and the short form
      to be used subsequently.
      Whereas |\numentry| and |\adentry| can `introduce'
      the full reference (like |\item| starts a new item
      \cite{1,~p166}), it may be better for |\sfentry|
      to have the full reference as an argument, so that it can be used
      as the default `form to be used at first citation'.

\noindent 
Although it would be desirable for the successors to the `standard styles'
to define facilities for all three citation schemes, other
|\documentstyle|s need not define facilities for all three.  For example,
a journal that wants its authors to use the author-date scheme would supply a
style file that only provides author-date facilities.
 
\subsection{VI(iii) Further details}
\subsubsection{Reference by number} 
The |\numcite| might take the form
|\numcite{|{\it key-list}|}| and similarly, |\numentry| commands  would be
|\numentry{|{\it cite-key}|}|.  Notice that, since |\numentry|
is specifically designed for `reference by number', there is no need to
allow an optional {\it label} argument like that for |\bibitem|.
 
To conform to the ISO specification \cite{10}, the successors to the
`standard styles' would arrange for |\numcite| to give a citation of the form
(24) and for |\numentry| to give a reference-list entry of the form
\description
\item[{\rm 24.}] {\sc Crane, D.} {\it Invisible colleges.} \dots
\enddescription

 
Perhaps \LaTeX3 could use the {\tt aux} file to refine an initial estimate
of the width of the final |\numentry|'s `label', so that the
do-it-yourself-er wouldn't need to supply a {\it widest-label\/} argument.
 
\subsubsection{Author-date}
The commands |\dcite|, |\adcite| and |\adentry| might
be defined to have the forms |\dcite{|{\it key-list}|}|,
|\adcite{|{\it key-list}|}| and
|\adentry{|{\it cite-key}|}{|{\it author}|}{|{\it date}|}|.
The {\tt adrefs} environment would {\it not} have a {\it widest-label}
argument, since in this scheme entries in the reference-list are unlabelled.
 
If such a definition of |\adentry| was documented in the successor to
\cite{1}, a do-it-yourself-er would be able to use the author-date
system just as easily as the `reference by number' system.
 
To conform to the ISO specification \cite{10}, the successors to the
`standard styles' would arrange for |\dcite| to give a citation of
the form (1972), for |\adcite| to give a citation of the form
(Crane, 1972), and for |\adentry| to give a reference-list entry with no
label.
 
\subsubsection{Short form}
The |\firstcite|, |\sfcite| and |\sfentry| commands might
be defined as |\firstcite{|{\it key-list}|}|,
|\sfcite{|{\it key-list}|}| and
|\sfentry{|{\it cite-key}|}[|{\it
      fairly-full-form}|]{|{\it short-form}|}{|{\it
      full-reference}|}|.
Such  definitions would, in effect, automate Butcher's manual method of
ensuring consistency \cite{5,~p178}.
Having {\it full-reference} as an argument means that the full reference
can be used as the default {\it fairly-full-form} (to be used when the work
is first cited \cite{6,~p407}).
The {\tt sfrefs} environment would {\em not} have a
{\it widest-label} argument.
 
The successors to the `standard styles' would arrange for |\firstcite|
to produce the {\it fairly-full-form} and |\sfcite| to produce the
{\it short-form}.
This makes the pessimistic assumption that \LaTeX\ can not itself determine
whether a citation is the `first citation' of a particular work.
If someone was ingenious enough to produce code that determined whether a
citation is a `first citation', {\tt\ttbackslash firstcite} would be
unnecessary (except,~perhaps, for the construction of tables of abbreviations
\cite{6,~p414}.)
To conform to the ISO specification \cite{10}, neither
|\firstcite| nor |\sfcite|
would add any punctuation (but, for example, a style file that implemented
the MLA conventions would have to add brackets \cite{7, ch.\ 5}).
In the successors to the `standard styles',
the |\sfentry| would produce an entry with no label.
 
People producing other style files would be free to implement other
conventions \cite{5,~p168}.
 
Some works may have no bibliography or may have just a `select
bibliography' \cite{5,~p168}.  For such works, it will still
be necessary to supply the details for use by |\firstcite| and
|\sfcite|.  It may therefore be worth allowing a form of
{\tt sfrefs} (e.g., |\begin{sfrefs}[null]|)
that holds details of cited works but does no typesetting.
 
\subsubsection{Additional references}
Since the entries in an `additional list' will not be cited as such
(although an `all sources consulted' list may contain a duplicate of
a cited entry in a `works cited' list), the list will be typeset
without `labels'.  Even in a document that uses the `reference by
number' citation scheme (and so needs `labels' in the {\tt numrefs}
list), there will be no `labels' for the entries in an additional list.
 
It therefore seems likely that the {\tt morerefs} environment could
be implemented as a variation of {\tt adrefs} or {\tt sfrefs}, the main changes
being:

\item{\rtr}a change of title (but see section \ref{VII(iii)})
\item{\rtr}absence of
      {\it cite-key, author, date, fairly-full-form} and {\it short-form}
      arguments.
 
\subsection{VI(iv) Order within the reference-list} 
As stated in section \ref{V}, it is probably best to leave
any sorting of the reference-list to some other software, or to the author.
 
However, it might be possible for \LaTeX\ to provide a warning if a
reference-list is obviously in the wrong order.  Perhaps:
\item{\rtr}although there may be no easy alternative to numbering
      |\numcite|s in order of appearance within {\tt numrefs}
      (even though `order of first citation' is usually what
      is required), \LaTeX\ could give a warning if a |\numcite|
      gave a number that exceeded the `biggest number produced
      by |\numcite| so far' by more than one.
\item{\rtr}there could be a warning if an |\adentry| had an
      {\it author} whose first letter came before the first letter of the
      preceding |\adentry|'s {\it author} in the alphabet.
 
\subsection{VI(v) Citation of a specific division}
%\label{division} 
As stated in section \ref{III(i)}, provision needs to be made for
the citation of a particular division (e.g.,~page, section, chapter,
equation) of another work.  The syntax of citation commands should
not only allow several works to be cited simultaneously, but should also
allow the relevant division of each work to be specified.
 
From the author's point-of-view, there would be a variety of satisfactory
ways to specify citations that are to appear as
`[4,~p10; 5; 6,~p3]', e.g.

{\frenchspacing
\leftline{\bs numcite\char'173smith[p. 10],brown,jones[p. 3]\char'175}
\leftline{\bs numcite\char'173smith, p. 10; brown; jones, p. 3\char'175}
\leftline{\bs numcite\char'173smith \& p. 10; brown; jones \& p. 3\char'175}
}

\noindent
The precise syntax would have to take
account of the practicalities of programming a command that has to be able
to accept pairs of arguments, where the second member of each pair is optional.
 
Analogous facilities would be needed for author-date and `short form'
citations.
 
Incidentally, since abbreviations such as p., ch., sec., and fig.\ are
common when such divisions are specified, I think that citation commands
should arrange for the optional arguments to be typeset with
|\frenchspacing|.
 
\section{VII Details of reference-lists} 
\subsection{VII(i) Variations within mainstream practice}
Although many academic and technical publications involve only a single
undivided reference-list, some such publications involve:
{\description
\item[more than one list]
      This situation can arise:
      
      \itemitem{$\star$}when there is a list of `further reading' etc.,
            as well as the list of `works cited'.
            This case has been covered in sections \ref{II(ii)},
            \ref{III(ii)}, \ref{VI(ii)} and \ref{VI(iii)}.
      \itemitem{$\star$}when conference proceedings are produced, since each
            contribution may have its own reference-list.
      \itemitem{$\star$}in manuals for software.  For example, in \cite{13}, a
            software house's own publications are introduced in the preface
            and cited (in effect) using a `short form' scheme, while
            other people's publications are listed at the end of the manual
            and are cited using the author-date scheme.
\item[subdivisions within a list]
      Some reference-lists,~particularly in the humanities, are subdivided
      according to the source of the cited documents (see
      \cite{5,~p183}, \cite{6,~p425} and
      \cite{7,~p88}).

\enddescription}
 
In some cases, an author may wish to add explanatory paragraphs describing,
for example, how material was chosen for a `select bibliography'
\cite{6, fig.\ 15.11} or information about access to (document)
archives \cite{6, fig.\ 15.16}.
 
\subsection{VII(ii) \LaTeX\ 2.09} 
\LaTeX\ 2.09 can cope with documents that have more than one
{\tt thebibliography} environment, and seems to deal satisfactorily
with a situation in which some |\cite| commands are to
one {\tt thebibliography} and some are to another (provided that
the {\it cite-key\/}s are unique).  The default effect is
to give {\it label\/}s that are not unique, which will be acceptable
when each contribution to a `conference proceedings' has its
references numbered from one, but not if `works cited'
and `additional references' are both numbered from one
(see section \ref{III(ii)}).
 
The specification of {\tt thebibliography} \cite{1,~p187}
does not allow anything other than |\bibitem|s within a
{\tt thebibliography} environment.  Hence, it is not clear
how one can introduce subheadings within a reference-list.
(In practice, a |\section*| seems to work between
|\bibitem|s, but I suspect that it puts \LaTeX\ 2.09 into a loop
if placed before the first |\bibitem|.)
 
Anyone trying to add explanatory paragraphs (as in \cite{6, fig.\ 15.11}
and \cite{6, fig.\ 15.16}) will probably find that \LaTeX\ 2.09
objects that `{|Something's wrong--perhaps a missing \item|}'.
 
\subsection{VII(iii) \LaTeX3} 
Ideally, in order to provide support for the conventions that are routine
in mainstream publishing practice, \LaTeX3 should be able to cope with
all the variations outlined in section \ref{VII(i)}.
 
\subsubsection{Multiple lists} 
The suggestions made in section \ref{VI} would probably cater for most
situations where a document has more than one reference-list.
 
The distinction between {\tt morerefs} and the other environments for
reference-lists would take care of situations where there is a list of
`additional references' as well as a list of `works cited'.
The distinction between the `short form' commands/environment
and the other commands/environments would take care of situations where a
software house uses `short form' for its own publications
and some other scheme for other publications.  Conference proceedings
will be able to have `a reference-list for each contribution'
if \LaTeX3 follows the \LaTeX\ 2.09 precedent that allows
more than one {\tt thebibliography} in a document.
 
\subsubsection{Subdivisions and explanatory paragraphs}
Because the sciences have different conventions
from the humanities,~people using the `reference by number' citation
scheme are unlikely to want the options of subdividing their reference-list
and inserting explanatory paragraphs.  Therefore, it would be legitimate to
say (for example) `subdivisions and explanatory paragraphs are supported
within {\tt adrefs}, {\tt sfrefs} and {\tt morerefs} but not within
{\tt numrefs}', if this made the programming task easier.
 
For example, it might be convenient to implement {\tt numrefs} as
a `list-making environment' (as in \LaTeX\ 2.09) but to implement
the other environments in some other way.  Lack of support for subdivisions
and explanatory paragraphs is unlikely to matter in {\tt numrefs}; the
`other way' (more like |\paragraph|,~perhaps?) might make it
easier to implement support for these facilities in the other environments.
 
\subsubsection{Other problems}
%\label{reflist-scope} 
One approach to some of the problems mentioned in section \ref{III(iii)}
is for the standard styles to define the heading for the reference-list by,
for example, |\def\numrefsheading{References}|, so that anyone who wants
to change the heading can do so by issuing a |\renewcommand| command
somewhere before the start of their reference-list.
 
Another approach is to work in terms of the standard publishing industry
concept of `back matter' \cite{6,~p4}.  Instead of having to
understand where the {\it heading}, {\it left-head}, {\it right-head} and
table-of-contents entry (or lack of it) originate for units such as the
glossary (if any), the reference-list(s) and the index (if any)
{\em separately}, an author would only have to understand how these features
are treated {\em consistently} within `back matter'.
 
Although the `back matter' approach could be used if environments
such as {\tt numrefs} followed the {\tt thebibliography} precedent and issued
commands such as |\chapter| or |\section| themselves, authors
might find the way that {\it heading}, {\it left-head}, {\it right-head} and
table-of-contents entry materialize less mysterious if it was just the same
for a reference-list as for (say) a glossary.  This would imply that
{\tt numrefs}, {\tt adrefs}, {\tt sfrefs} and {\tt morerefs} should
not issue commands like |\chapter| or |\section| themselves.
As a bonus, it would then be possible for an author to insert an explanatory
paragraph before the reference-list, and to arrange for subdivisions.
 
For example, if there was a {\tt backmatter} environment within which
|\chapter| was treated as defining a unit of `back matter',
an author's file might contain commands such as
\begintt
\begin{backmatter}
   \chapter{Glossary}
      ...
   \chapter{References}
      \section{Primary sources}
      \begin{sfrefs}
      ...
      \end{sfrefs}
      \section{Secondary sources}
      \begin{sfrefs}
      ...
      \end{sfrefs}
   \chapter{Further reading}
      \begin{morerefs}
      ...
      \end{morerefs}
\end{backmatter}
\endtt
 
\section{VIII Conclusion}
\LaTeX\ has a large number of users, and potential users, who wish to produce
documents that conform to the conventions that are standard in academic
publishing.  One element of their requirement is the need to conform to the
conventions for citations and reference-lists that are usual in their
disciplines.
 
The choice for \LaTeX3 may be between:
\item{\rtr}having more facilities for citations and reference-lists than
      \LaTeX\ 2.09, perhaps as suggested in section \ref{VI}.
      This would imply an increase in:
      \itemitem{$\star$}the amount of code needed to implement the facilities,
and
            the guru time needed for writing the code
      \itemitem{$\star$}the number of pages needed, in the successor to
\cite{1},
            to describe the facilities -- perhaps 8 pages rather than
            the 2 pages in \cite{1}.
\item{\rtr}no significant increase in the facilities provided for citations
      and reference-lists.  Contrary to the idea of `freeing people
      from formatting concerns to allow them to concentrate on writing'
      \cite{1,~p8}, many authors (perhaps most authors) would be
      wasting time:    
      \itemitem{$\star$}hacking at style-files
      \itemitem{$\star$}searching (software) archives for ready made solutions
      \itemitem{$\star$}taking up support staff's time in the search for advice
(with the
 support staff
            in turn taking up gurus' time in their search for solutions).

\noindent
      Moreover, most of this time would be wasted by (or on behalf of) authors
      who don't want anything  exotic; they just want to conform
      to the conventions  standard in traditional academic publishing.
I'm inclined to think that the first option would be the lesser of the
two evils.
 
\section{Appendix: interface with \BibTeX} 
The preceding sections make some suggestions for a \LaTeX3 user
interface that would enable the do-it-yourself-er to conform to
the conventions that are usual in academic publishing.
It is also necessary to consider the implications for the interface to
\BibTeX.
 
\subsection{Single reference-list} 
Inspecting {\tt bst} files gives me the impression that, if it
was decided to adopt a scheme such as that described in section
\ref{VI}, it would be fairly easy to produce new {\tt bst} files
to supersede existing ones.  For example, a {\tt bst} file
that implemented a `reference by number' scheme would write
|\numentry| commands rather than |\bibitem| commands.
 
If {\tt bst} files were created in this way, they would be able to
deal with the straightforward situation when there is a single
reference-list that contains all works cited (plus, possibly,
any works specified by a command like |\nocite|).
 
\subsection{Multiple reference-lists, all with the same style}
More complicated situations can arise in which a document involves
several reference-lists.  For example:

\item{\rtr}The editor of the proceedings of a conference might want the
      published proceedings to have a reference-list at the end of each
      chapter.
\item{\rtr}If, as suggested in section \ref{VII(iii)}, {\tt sfrefs} was
      implemented in a way that allowed a sequence of {\tt sfrefs} environments
      to each be preceded by a |\section| command, then, as far as
      \BibTeX\ is concerned, each {\tt sfrefs} environment might be a separate
      reference-list.
 
In both these examples, the document would involve several reference-lists,
but each reference-list would need to be typeset in a common style.
I assume that the main problems would be in arranging:

\item{\rtr}to have multiple {\tt bbl} files, or distinct divisions of a single
      {\tt bbl} file
\item{\rtr}that each reference-list takes its entries from the correct {\tt bbl}
      file, or from the correct division of a single {\tt bbl} file.
 
\subsection{Two reference-lists, each with a different style} 
People producing documents that have a second reference-list (e.g.,
`further reading') in addition to the list of `works cited'
might want the first list typeset in one style and the second
list typeset in another.  (In particular, if the `reference by number'
scheme is used, the first list will have `labels' but the second
list will have no `labels'.)  If the commands/environments suggested
in section \ref{VI} were implemented, the first list would use
{\tt numrefs}, {\tt adrefs} or {\tt sfrefs}, while the second list would
use {\tt morerefs}.
 
In this situation, it would be necessary to communicate to \BibTeX\
that two lists are required, but that they are to be typeset in different
styles.  Since the second list is to contain `works {\em not\/}
cited', it will also be necessary to specify the works to be shown in the
second list.
 
If it is decided to extend the interface between \LaTeX\ and \BibTeX\ to
cater for such situations, it will probably be necessary to consider
defining alternatives to \LaTeX\ 2.09's |\bibliography| and
|\bibliographystyle| commands, since it seems unlikely that the syntax
of the \LaTeX\ 2.09 commands could be extended so as to pass the necessary
information.  One might, for example, consider syntax such as
|\bibtexcites[|{\it cites-style}|]{|{\it bib-files}|}|
and
|\bibtexmore[|{\it more-style}|]{|{\it bib-files}|}{|{\it
      key-list}|}|.
Here, it is assumed that:

\item{\rtr}the |\documentstyle| would set defaults for the {\it cites-style}
      and {\it more-style} that are to be passed to \BibTeX, but the user
      can over-ride the defaults via the optional arguments to
      |\bibtexcites| and |\bibtexmore|
\item{\rtr}|\bibtexmore|'s {\it key-list} argument would be used to
      specify the works to be included in the list of `additional
      references'.
 
If it is not practicable to extend the \LaTeX\slash \BibTeX\ interface
to cater for these situations automatically, it would presumably be a matter of
some `human intervention':
\item{\rtr} to prepare a {\tt bbl} file for the `additional references'
\item{\rtr} to |\input| the {\tt bbl} file.

\def\item#1{\par\hangindent1.5em\hangafter1{\noindent
\hbox to 1.5em{#1\hfil}}}
\def\bibitem#1#2{\item{{#1}}{#2}}
\section{Bibliography}
\bibitem{1} {\sc Leslie Lamport.}
      {\it \LaTeXsl: A document preparation system.}
      Addison-Wesley, 1986.
\bibitem{2} {\sc Frank Mittelbach and Rainer Sch\"{o}pf.}
      With \LaTeX\ into the nineties.
      {\it TUGboat,}   1989, {\bf 10}, 681--690.
\bibitem{3}
      {\it Citing publications by bibliographical references.}
      BS 5605.  British Standards Institution, 1978.
\bibitem{4}
      {\it Citation of unpublished documents.}
      BS 6371.  British Standards Institution, 1983.
\bibitem{5}
      {\sc Judith Butcher.}
      {\it Copy-editing.}
      Cambridge University Press, 1981.
\bibitem{6}
      {\it The Chicago manual of style.}
      Chicago University Press, 1982.
\bibitem{7}
      {\sc Joseph Gibaldi and Walter S. Achert.}
      {\it MLA handbook for writers of research papers.}
      Modern Language Association of America, 1988.
\bibitem{8}
      {\sc Edward J. Huth.}
      {\it Medical style and format.}
      ISI Press, 1987.
\bibitem{9}
      {\sc ICMJE, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.}
      Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical
            journals.
      {\it British Medical Journal,}   1988, {\bf 296}, 401--405.
\bibitem{10}
      {\it Documentation -- bibliographic references
            -- content, form and structure.}
      ISO 690.  International Organization for Standardization, 1987.
\bibitem{11}
      {\sc Maeve O'Connor.}
      {\it Editing scientific books and journals.}
      Pitman Medical, 1978.
\bibitem{12}
      {\sc Gillian Page, Robert Campbell and Jack Meadows.}
      {\it Journal publishing: principles and practice.}
      Butterworths, 1987.
\bibitem{13}
      {\sc Marija J. Noru\v{s}is.}
      {\it SPSS-X Introductory Statistics Guide for Release~3.}
      SPSS Inc., 1988.
\bibitem{14}
      {\it Presentation of theses and dissertations.}
      BS 4821.  British Standards Institution, 1990.
\bibitem{15}
      {\it EndNote:  A reference database and bibliography maker.}
      Berkeley: Niles \& Associates, Inc., 1989. 
\author{David Rhead}

 \endgroup
\endinput