summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/cms-dates-sample.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/cms-dates-sample.tex')
-rw-r--r--Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/cms-dates-sample.tex32
1 files changed, 19 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/cms-dates-sample.tex b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/cms-dates-sample.tex
index cf2189a331a..247d32c5e03 100644
--- a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/cms-dates-sample.tex
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/biblatex-chicago/cms-dates-sample.tex
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ process your .bib files, as \textsc{Bib}\TeX\ (and its more recent
variants) will no longer provide all the features you need. I highly
recommend, therefore, that you upgrade either to \textsf{Biber} 0.9.9
and to \textsf{biblatex} 1.7, which are designed to work together, or
-to \textsf{Biber} 1.0 and \textsf{biblatex} 2.0, which latter two are
+to \textsf{Biber} 1.4 and \textsf{biblatex} 2.4, which latter two are
the newest releases and are likewise designed to work as a matched
pair. The advice that follows in this document assumes that you are
using \textsf{Biber}; if you wish to continue using \textsc{Bib}\TeX\
@@ -87,14 +87,18 @@ This edition implements significant changes to what the specification
has, historically, recommended, and there are certain to be users who
prefer the older format with titles capitalized sentence-style and
not, in the case of most un-book-like entries, enclosed in quotation
-marks. You can still use the 15th-edition style files from
-\textsf{biblatex-chicago}, which have been updated with improvements
-borrowed from the 16th edition, but which shouldn't require any
-changes to your current .bib files. (See
-\textsf{biblatex-chicago15.pdf and cms15-dates-sample.pdf}.) I shall
-also, in a future release, implement a full 16th-edition style with
-15th-edition title formatting, as envisaged by the \emph{Manual}
-\autocite*[15.45]{chicago:manual}.
+marks. For such users, the new \textsf{authordate-trad} style, as
+envisaged by the \emph{Manual} \autocite*[15.45]{chicago:manual},
+grafts the traditional Chicago author-date title formatting onto the
+current recommendations for the remainder of the reference apparatus.
+Please consult \textsf{cms-trad-sample.pdf} to see how this looks in
+practice. You can also still use the 15th-edition style files from
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago}, which have been updated with some
+improvements borrowed from the 16th edition. (See
+\textsf{biblatex-chicago15.pdf} and \textsf{cms15-dates-sample.pdf}.)
+I would encourage all users, however, to switch to one of the
+16th-edition styles as soon as possible, as I am concentrating nearly
+all of my development time there.
\subsection*{Usage}
\label{usage}
@@ -124,10 +128,12 @@ automatically resets the tracker at page breaks:
\citereset\cmd{citereset}\ \autocite[15.27]{chicago:manual}. If you
are going to repeat a source, make sure that the cite command provides
-a postnote --- if you don't need to cite a specific page, then it's
-better only to use one citation rather than two, as otherwise, in the
-current state of the code, you'll get empty parentheses, like so:
-\autocite{chicago:manual}.
+a postnote --- from this release of \textsf{biblatex-chicago} you'll
+no longer get any annoying empty parentheses, but you will get another
+standard citation, which may add too much clutter:
+\autocite{chicago:manual}. If you don't need to cite a specific page,
+then it may be better, or at least more concise, only to use one
+citation command rather than two.
\subsection*{Other citation commands}
\label{sec:other}