![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6e50a7aa57f5569d881f204f124d96ef.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 23:34:58 -0500
Rik Kabel
On 12/7/2018 22:51, Alan Braslau wrote:
You can place references rendered as you need, not necessarily in one single bibliography list, but they must be rendered somewhere, otherwise numbering and cross-referencing is meaningless. In the case of footnote references, each footnote contains a rendering (not a citation) of a fragment of the list.
You are thinking too much in a standard frame, and I'm not sure what you want to accomplish.
One "other use" case that I make is a catalog of hundreds of mesophases. I "cite" them and their various properties throughout the text, an my "list rendering" has become an index.
Alan
I would like simply to prepare a paper structured like the one found at https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/Greenblatt%20Lecture.pdf. There is no biblography; there are bibliographic references in footnotes. There is no interaction. The only cross-references are the footnote indices.
If I could in addition pull in blocks of text from a secondary database, that is lagniappe. Neither function requires rendering in a separate list or lists.
Certainly ConTeXt's bibliographic subsystem should be capable of supporting such a basic format as that, but I can see no way to get it to do so.
As I wrote, "rendering" to footnotes as elements of a "list" can be done, and your cross-reference *is* the footnote index. We have not written setups that do this already as I have never needed this format myself, although it is rather common in certain fields. "Pulling-in" blocks of text in general (without a basis) is not the aim. Again, the entire point is to associate fields to an entry, and the notion of a "list" is more general than a traditional bibliography list.