![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5b3b9bba37162ef68ad5fc2fc66b9fd8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
This came up a while back... Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Fei He wrote:
1. \setupcite[number][left=[, right=]] did not work. the citation still shows up in the text like (author, year)
In this case, you also need \setuppublications[refcommand=number], to change the default alternative for \cite. Or you could have used \cite[number][xxx] in the text instead of the defaulted version.
Are you sure you want 'number' instead of 'num'?
...and now I have a similar problem. I have this in my setup: \usemodule[bib] \setuppublications[sorttype=cite] \setuppublications[criterium=used] \setuppublications[numbering=yes] \setuppublications[refcommand=number] \setupcite[num][left=[, inbetween=-, right=]] \setupbibtex[database=myBibTeXfile, sort=no] I'm using \cite[Cite Key] (e.g. \cite[Bush2005a, Rice2005b] ) for my input file citations. In my current headache file, My first citation in my input file has four individual references. I would like to see: blah blah [1–4] blah blah I'm getting: blah blah [113, 106, 78, 87] These numbers generated are the database sequence numbers. So, obviously I"ve got something wrong in my setup since I want the citations to start at (1) for the first citation and increment as new papers get called irrespective of their order in the .bib file. I guess: refcommand=number and/or: setupcite[num] are inappropriate and/or something else is missing, but I can't find the magic combo. I can't tell whether my "citation lists" are going to be compressed (assuming I have correctly surmised what "compressed" means), because I don't get any consecutive runs with the numbering "error". I could fake this to check whether the compression kicks in, but since I'm here already, maybe some fine ConTeXpert could comment on whether I'll get the desired e.g. [2,5-7] rather than: [2,5,6,7] once I get the numbering sorted out ? wtia, mark.