[NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
Thomas A. Schmitz
thomas.schmitz at uni-bonn.de
Fri Sep 15 15:09:46 CEST 2006
On Sep 15, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
> At first I was sure that (2006a) and (2006b) are the right answer for
> the list. Othewise how else could the user know which entry to look
> up when they see, say, Hoekwater (2006b) in the text? But I just
> figured out the answer to that question: Users count 'a', 'b',
> ... starting with the first 2006 entry. However, I still don't think
> it's a good idea to make them do that. Let's not ask users to do what
> computers do very well (counting)!
> Let me know whether I'm understanding it correctly. If you have a
> numbered reference list, then the year can still end up with a letter
> tag, e.g.
> 1. Taco Hoekwater. JournalA. 2006a
> 2. Taco Hoekwater. JournalB. 2006b
> Ah, I hadn't thought of that problem. You're right, there shouldn't
> be a maybeyear in this case since the list number disambiguates the
> reference completely.
yes, I agree completely: let the computer do the counting and
bookkeeping! And you've hit the nail on the head: what I meant was,
in cases where the form of the list makes the reference completely
unambiguous (because it is numbered or because keys/authoryear tags
are prefixed), adding another number in the bibliographic entry is
superfluous and somewhat ugly.
So question to Taco: maybe we need three options for maybeyear?
1. off [always]
2. on [always]
3. on for tags and authoryear etc., off for the date entry in the
Am I making sense? Are we working you to the bones? ;-)
More information about the ntg-context