diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/biblatex-chicago.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/biblatex-chicago.tex | 184 |
1 files changed, 105 insertions, 79 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/biblatex-chicago.tex b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/biblatex-chicago.tex index dbc00cbe217..d0aaa942d26 100644 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/biblatex-chicago.tex +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/biblatex-chicago.tex @@ -49,6 +49,13 @@ {\baselineskip}% {.5\baselineskip}% {\sffamily\normalsize\bfseries}}% +\renewcommand{\paragraph}{\@startsection + {paragraph}% + {1}% + {\z@}% + {\baselineskip}%3.25ex \@plus1ex \@minus.2ex}% + {0mm}% + {}}% \makeatother \begin{document} \begin{center} @@ -56,7 +63,7 @@ Style files for biblatex \vspace{.3\baselineskip} -\sffamily\normalsize\bfseries David Fussner\qquad Version 0.9.9d (beta) \\ +\sffamily\normalsize\bfseries David Fussner\qquad Version 0.9.9e (beta) \\ \href{mailto:djf027@googlemail.com}{djf027@googlemail.com}\\ \today \end{center} @@ -151,7 +158,7 @@ this release. \begin{itemize}{}{} \item Philipp Lehman's \textsf{biblatex} package, of course! You must - use the latest version(s) --- 1.7 or 2.8 at the time of writing --- + use the latest version(s) --- 1.7 or 2.8a at the time of writing --- as my code relies on features and bug fixes only available in the most recent release. Lehman's tools require several packages, and he strongly recommends several more: @@ -177,7 +184,7 @@ this release. use the following: \item \textsf{Biber} --- the next-generation \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ replacement, which is available from SourceForge. You should use - the latest version, 1.8, to work with \textsf{biblatex} 2.8 and + the latest version, 1.8, to work with \textsf{biblatex} 2.8a and \textsf{biblatex-chicago}, and it is required for users who are either using the author-date styles or processing a .bib file in Unicode. See \textsf{cms-dates-sample.pdf} and, for example, the @@ -319,7 +326,7 @@ this release. \subsection{License} \label{sec:lppl} -Copyright © 2008--2013 David Fussner. This package is +Copyright © 2008--2014 David Fussner. This package is author-maintained. This work may be copied, distributed and/or modified under the conditions of the \LaTeX\ Project Public License, either version 1.3 of this license or (at your option) any later @@ -1460,35 +1467,37 @@ you must be using \textsf{Biber} for the settings to apply. See harley:ancient:cart, harley:cartography, and harley:hoc for how this might look. -\mybigspace The \mymarginpar{\textbf{online}} \emph{Manual}'s -scattered instructions (14.4--13, 14.166--169, 14.184--185, 14.200, -14.223, 14.243--246) for citing online materials are slightly -different from those suggested by standard \textsf{biblatex}. Indeed, -this is a case where complete backward compatibility with other -\textsf{biblatex} styles may be impossible, because as a general rule -the \emph{Manual} considers relevant not only where a source is found, -but also the nature of that source, e.g., if it's an online edition of -a book (james:ambassadors), then it calls for a \textsf{book} entry. -Even if you cite an intrinsically online source, if that source is -structured more or less like a conventional printed periodical, then -you'll probably want to use \textsf{article} or \textsf{review} -instead of \textsf{online} (stenger:privacy, which cites -\emph{CNN.com}). The 16th edition's suggestions for blogs lend -themselves well to the \textsf{article} type, too, while comments -become, logically, \textsf{reviews} (14.243--6; ellis:blog, -ac:comment). Otherwise, for online documents not \enquote{formally - published,} the \textsf{online} type is usually the best choice -(evanston:library, powell:email). Online videos, in particular short -pieces or those that present excerpts of some longer event or work, -and also online interviews, usually require this type, too. (See -harwood:biden, horowitz:youtube, pollan:plant, but cp.\ weed:flatiron, -a complete film, which requires a \textsf{video} entry. Online audio -pieces, particularly dated ones from an archive, work best as -\textsf{misc} entries with an \textsf{entrysubtype}: coolidge:speech, -roosevelt:speech.) Some online materials will, no doubt, make it -difficult to choose an entry type, but so long as all locating -information is present, then perhaps that is enough to fulfill the -specification, or at least so I'd like to hope. +\paragraph*{\mymarginpar{\textbf{online}}} +\label{sec:online} + +The \emph{Manual}'s scattered instructions (14.4--13, 14.166--169, +14.184--185, 14.200, 14.223, 14.243--246) for citing online materials +are slightly different from those suggested by standard +\textsf{biblatex}. Indeed, this is a case where complete backward +compatibility with other \textsf{biblatex} styles may be impossible, +because as a general rule the \emph{Manual} considers relevant not +only where a source is found, but also the nature of that source, +e.g., if it's an online edition of a book (james:ambassadors), then it +calls for a \textsf{book} entry. Even if you cite an intrinsically +online source, if that source is structured more or less like a +conventional printed periodical, then you'll probably want to use +\textsf{article} or \textsf{review} instead of \textsf{online} +(stenger:privacy, which cites \emph{CNN.com}). The 16th edition's +suggestions for blogs lend themselves well to the \textsf{article} +type, too, while comments become, logically, \textsf{reviews} +(14.243--6; ellis:blog, ac:comment). Otherwise, for online documents +not \enquote{formally published,} the \textsf{online} type is usually +the best choice (evanston:library, powell:email). Online videos, in +particular short pieces or those that present excerpts of some longer +event or work, and also online interviews, usually require this type, +too. (See harwood:biden, horowitz:youtube, pollan:plant, but cp.\ +weed:flatiron, a complete film, which requires a \textsf{video} entry. +Online audio pieces, particularly dated ones from an archive, work +best as \textsf{misc} entries with an \textsf{entrysubtype}: +coolidge:speech, roosevelt:speech.) Some online materials will, no +doubt, make it difficult to choose an entry type, but so long as all +locating information is present, then perhaps that is enough to +fulfill the specification, or at least so I'd like to hope. \mylittlespace Constructing an \textsf{online} .bib file entry is much the same as in \textsf{biblatex}. The \textsf{title} field would @@ -1884,9 +1893,11 @@ undefined, and \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will do the rest. Cf.\ \textsf{foreword} and \textsf{introduction}. (See \emph{Manual} 14.91, 14.116; polakow:afterw.) -\mybigspace At \mymarginpar{\textbf{annotation}} \label{sec:annote} -the request of Emil Salim, \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} has, as of -version 0.9, added a package option (see \texttt{annotation} below, +\paragraph*{\mymarginpar{\textbf{annotation}}} +\label{sec:annote} + +At the request of Emil Salim, \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} has, as +of version 0.9, added a package option (see \texttt{annotation} below, section \ref{sec:useropts}) to allow you to produce annotated bibliographies. The formatting of such a bibliography is currently fairly basic, though it conforms with the \emph{Manual's} minimal @@ -2113,22 +2124,24 @@ be useful for some purposes. Cf.\ \textsf{annotator}. \enlargethispage{\baselineskip} -\mybigspace This \colmarginpar{\textbf{crossref}} field is the -standard \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ cross-referencing mechanism, and -\textsf{biblatex} has adopted it while also introducing a modified one -of its own (\textsf{xref}). If you are using \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ (or -\textsf{bibtex8)} the \textsf{crossref} field works exactly the same -as it always has, while \textsf{xref} attempts to remedy some of the -deficiencies of the usual mechanism by ensuring that child entries -will inherit no data at all from their parents. Section~2.4.1.1 of -\textsf{biblatex.pdf} contains useful notes on the intricacies of -managing cross-referenced entries with these traditional backends, and -for the most part these backends are still usable, if inconvenient. -New functionality, discussed below, for abbreviating references in -\textsf{book}, \textsf{bookinbook}, \textsf{collection}, and -\textsf{proceedings} entries, and for using the new -\mycolor{\textsf{mv*}} entry types to do so, will prove extremely -difficult with the older backends, so if you plan on lots of +\paragraph*{\colmarginpar{\textbf{crossref}}} +\label{sec:crossref} + +This field is the standard \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ cross-referencing +mechanism, and \textsf{biblatex} has adopted it while also introducing +a modified one of its own (\textsf{xref}). If you are using +\textsc{Bib}\TeX\ (or \textsf{bibtex8)} the \textsf{crossref} field +works exactly the same as it always has, while \textsf{xref} attempts +to remedy some of the deficiencies of the usual mechanism by ensuring +that child entries will inherit no data at all from their parents. +Section~2.4.1.1 of \textsf{biblatex.pdf} contains useful notes on the +intricacies of managing cross-referenced entries with these +traditional backends, and for the most part these backends are still +usable, if inconvenient. New functionality, discussed below, for +abbreviating references in \textsf{book}, \textsf{bookinbook}, +\textsf{collection}, and \textsf{proceedings} entries, and for using +the new \mycolor{\textsf{mv*}} entry types to do so, will prove +extremely difficult with the older backends, so if you plan on lots of cross-referencing in \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} then I strongly recommend you use \textsf{Biber}. @@ -2539,16 +2552,18 @@ identify a particular article. Only applicable to the \textsf{article} entry type. Not typically required by the \emph{Manual}. -\mybigspace Standard \mymarginpar{\textbf{entrysubtype}} and very -powerful \textsf{biblatex} field, left undefined by the standard -styles. In \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} it has four very specific -uses, the first three of which I have designed in order to maintain, -as much as possible, backward compatibility with the standard styles. -First, in \textsf{article}, \textsf{periodical}, and \textsf{review} -entries, the field allows you to differentiate between scholarly -\enquote{journals,} on the one hand, and \enquote{magazines} and -\enquote{newspapers} on the other. Usage is fairly simple: you need -to put the exact string \texttt{magazine} into the +\paragraph*{\mymarginpar{\textbf{entrysubtype}}} +\label{sec:entrysub} + +Standard and very powerful \textsf{biblatex} field, left undefined by +the standard styles. In \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} it has four +very specific uses, the first three of which I have designed in order +to maintain, as much as possible, backward compatibility with the +standard styles. First, in \textsf{article}, \textsf{periodical}, and +\textsf{review} entries, the field allows you to differentiate between +scholarly \enquote{journals,} on the one hand, and \enquote{magazines} +and \enquote{newspapers} on the other. Usage is fairly simple: you +need to put the exact string \texttt{magazine} into the \textsf{entrysubtype} field if you are citing one of the latter two types of source, whereas if your source is a \enquote{journal,} then you need do nothing. @@ -3334,20 +3349,23 @@ preferences regarding the formatting of numerals. \enlargethispage{\baselineskip} -\mybigspace This \mymarginpar{\textbf{shortauthor}} is a standard -\textsf{biblatex} field, but \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} makes -considerably grea\-ter use of it than the standard styles. For the -purposes of the Chicago style, the field provides the name to be used -in the short form of a footnote. In the vast majority of cases, you -don't need to specify it, because the \textsf{biblatex} system selects -the author's last name from the \textsf{author} field and uses it in -such a reference, and if there is no \textsf{author} it will search -\textsf{namea}, \textsf{editor}, \textsf{nameb}, \textsf{translator}, -and \textsf{namec}, in that order. (In the case of the non-standard -names \textsf{name[a-c]}, you will need to provide a \textsf{sortkey} -if you aren't using \textsf{Biber}. Cf.\ \cmd{DeclareSortingScheme} -and \cmd{DeclareLabelname} in section~\ref{sec:formatopts}, below.) -In an author-less \textsf{article} or \textsf{review} entry +\paragraph*{\mymarginpar{\textbf{shortauthor}}} +\label{sec:shortauthor} + +This is a standard \textsf{biblatex} field, but +\textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} makes considerably grea\-ter use of it +than the standard styles. For the purposes of the Chicago style, the +field provides the name to be used in the short form of a footnote. +In the vast majority of cases, you don't need to specify it, because +the \textsf{biblatex} system selects the author's last name from the +\textsf{author} field and uses it in such a reference, and if there is +no \textsf{author} it will search \textsf{namea}, \textsf{editor}, +\textsf{nameb}, \textsf{translator}, and \textsf{namec}, in that +order. (In the case of the non-standard names \textsf{name[a-c]}, you +will need to provide a \textsf{sortkey} if you aren't using +\textsf{Biber}. Cf.\ \cmd{DeclareSortingScheme} and +\cmd{DeclareLabelname} in section~\ref{sec:formatopts}, below.) In an +author-less \textsf{article} or \textsf{review} entry (\textsf{entrysubtype} \texttt{magazine}), where \textsf{biblatex-chicago-notes} will use the \textsf{journaltitle} as the author, or in author-less \textsf{manual} entries, where the @@ -4723,8 +4741,8 @@ option will be ignored in \textsf{article}, \textsf{misc}, \textsf{periodical}, and \textsf{review} fields. \mylittlespace This -\mymarginpar{\vspace{-1\baselineskip}\texttt{completenotes}% - \\\vspace{\baselineskip}\texttt{=true}} is the one option that rules +\mymarginpar{\vspace{-1\baselineskip}\texttt{completenotes=}% + \\\texttt{true}} is the one option that rules the three preceding, either printing all the fields under consideration --- the default --- or excluding all of them from long notes. It is set to \texttt{true} in \textsf{chicago-notes.cbx}, but @@ -10661,7 +10679,15 @@ code for it, let me know, and I'll look into it. \section{Revision History} \label{sec:history} -\textbf{0.9.9d: Released \today} +\textbf{0.9.9e: Released \today} +\begin{itemize} +\item This minor release fixes a regression in the \emph{Ibidem} + mechanism in the notes \&\ bibliography style, spotted by Harold + Bellemare, and present in the package since version 0.9.9c. In all + other respects this release is identical to 0.9.9d. +\end{itemize} + +\textbf{0.9.9d: Released October 30, 2013} \begin{itemize} \item Following requests by Kenneth~L.\ Pearce and Bertold Schweitzer, I have modified and extended the mechanism for creating abbreviated |