Re: [dev-context] New style bibliographies

Hi,

On 11 Aug 2016, at 16:18, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

Hi Taco,

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:18:19 +0200 Taco Hoekwater wrote:

...

First question: is there a ‘default’ or ‘standard’ dataset, or not? If so, is it named ‘default’ or ‘standard’? The bit of code on the wiki and the actual manual seem to disagree on that. My current solution looks like this:

\usebtxdataset[h-all-forced.bbl] \usebtxdefinitions[aps] \setupbtxrendering[alternative=aps] … \placelistofpublications[criterium=text]

That works, but almost all the documentation uses either [default] or [standard].

I do not know anything about [standard].

For convenience, we define a "default" dataset. Hans has insisted, however, that it would be good practice for a user to explicitly define datasets.

[standard] comes from the presentation slides from Bassenge, that are linked from the wiki page ‘Biblographies in MkIV’. An actual user definition of [default] is used as an example in actual manual. Together, that is a little confusing. If [default] is indeed predefined, then it should probably not be used as an example of defining a dataset. The slides cannot be fixed I guess, but [standard] is an unlucky name for a demonstration. In some later sections, the manual uses [example], and IMHO that is a lot clearer.

...

Second question: It appears I need both \usebtxdefinitions and \setupbtxrendering, which surprised me. I understand that right now, there is only ‘apa’ and ‘aps’, but it seems neither are preloaded? Without the \usebtxdefinitions, I did get a list of publications, but with horrible formatting, especially for ‘manual’ and ‘inproceedings’.

The default (not to be confused with the dataset named "default") rendering is extremely minimal: only @book and @article are recognized.

I find that a little odd, especially since it is not really documented (unless I missed something in the manual). Why not do absolutely nothing, then? Someone who needs ‘article’ is likely to need ‘inproceedings’, at least. And many ConTeXt users will want to have ‘electronic’ and ‘other’.

The rendering style is very simplified too. Hans wanted to keep this really minimal, so perhaps we can call it the "minimal" style.

You do NOT need to setup the rendering after loading a more complete style.

Oh right, yes it works! Sorry, I guess I got confused there. A new side note: the manual section for \setupbtxrendering seems to be undecided about “alternative=“ vs. “specification=“ (unless those are synonyms): The quickref block uses “alternative”.

...

Contrary to what the manual says, \cite[key] does not seem to work. however, \citation[key] does. So, in the preamble I now have

\let\cite\citation

but isn’t it weird that I needed that?

??? line 1391 of publ-ini.mkiv has this definition.

Nevertheless that does not work. In my document, \cite expands to: \protected macro:->\strc_references_apply_format {cite} (which is a definition from strc-ref.mkvi, and does not work) whereas \citation expands to \protected macro:->\doifelsenextoptionalcs \btxlistcitation \btxdirectlistcite which works perfectly. For now, I will tweak the bbl file some more to get rid of the incompatibilities, but I hope all the bbl remarks I made earlier can be integrated at some point. Btw, I found “publications.cite.missing”, and I really think that one should be enabled by default. Missing bibliographic references is just as bad as missing normal references. Taco Hoekwater Elvenkind BV