I mentioned this in an earlier e-mail but thought that now might be a good time to describe this issue in detail. I'd like to define a new authorconversion that renders the first author in a list differently than the remaining authors in the list. Specifically, I'd like to use the "inverted" authorconversion for the first author and the "normal" authorconversion for the rest.

In the newer bibl-bib.lua file, I can see what I might have to modify to accomplish this (I added the  if combiner == "invertedfirst"  block):

```
function authors.concat(author,combiner,what,settings)
    if type(combiner) == "string" then
        combiner = authors[combiner or "normal"] or authors.normal
    end
    local split = splitauthors(author)
    local setting = settings[what]
    local etallimit, etaldisplay, etaltext = 1000, 1000, ""
    if setting then
        etallimit   = settings.etallimit   or 1000
        etaldisplay = settings.etaldisplay or etallimit
        etalltext   = settings.etaltext    or ""
    end
    local max = #split
    if max > etallimit and etaldisplay < max then
        max = etaldisplay
    end
    if combiner == "invertedfirst" then
        for i=1,max do
            if i == 1 then
                split[i] = authors.inverted(split[i],settings)
            else
                split[i] = authors.normal(split[i],settings)
            end
           
        end
    else
        for i=1,max do
            split[i] = combiner(split[i],settings)
        end
    end
    local result = bibtexconcat(split,settings)
    if max < #split then
        return result
    else
        return result .. etaltext
    end
end
```

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to do anything. It's not clear to me how bibl-bib.lua and bibl-bib.mkiv are being used by the other publication support modules, if they're being used at all (publ-ini.mkiv doesn't appear to register it, anyway). Is there another file I'd have to change to make "invertedfirst" a working authorconversion? Is there a similar block of code in publ-ini.lua where I should be implementing this change instead?

Thanks!

Joey