Re: [NTG-context] BibTeX inproceedings entries not rendered correctly in APA style

On 2021-05-28, Alan Braslau wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2021 13:02:10 -0400 (EDT) Aditya Mahajan wrote:

...

...

If you have not defined a publisher, how should ANY format place the undefined publisher's name?

Simply leave it blank?

If there is no publisher, then @unpublished is a better category. APA explicitly, and for good reason, accounts for self-publishing, indicating that the Author was the publisher.

Ah ok, that explains the output I was obtaining. So, I am using the wrong bibliographic style for my purposes. In practice, at least in Computer Science, publishers (and also editors) are often omitted in references (it's more a "don't care", rather than a "don't know" thing, though).

If a publisher does not exist, was it published?

If the publisher is unknown, then why not state that: publisher="unknown publisher", or whatever?

Strictly speaking, your reasoning makes perfect sense, and I am all for enforcing constraints if a given bibliographic style requires them. But then, there might be alternatives for when one does not need to adhere to those styles. Does ConTeXt (LMTX) currently provide anything else besides apa and aps? I have read the BibTeX manual looong time ago, but I remember that there were mandatory and optional fields for each reference type. My memory may fail me, but I think that Editor and Publisher were not mandatory fields for inproceedings and article (I think Publisher is mandatory for book). Is there a bibliographic style in ConTeXt that follows those rules? Bibliography management is very sophisticated in ConTeXt (much more than LaTeX) and I have not grasped all of its details yet. It seems to me that it has also evolved quite a bit in recent years. So, the "ConTeXt way" of doing bibliographies still eludes me to some extent. Nicola