Re: Archival documents

Philipp Reichmuth wrote:

> while the recent beta does fix a number of problems, it appears that the
> existing beta support for @ARCHIVAL entries is currently broken; see
> e.g. the following minimal document:
> Together with the following .bib file, \cite produces no output at all,
> while it worked perfectly until before the update. The entry does make
> it into the bibliography.

This happens due to the empty title field and this should happen with 
all releases containing the archival-type.

> If I understand correctly, there is some work going on at the moment
> anyway on how @ARCHIVAL entries are treated; could this behaviour be
> related to some changes there?

Yes, we have to discuss the features needed for this publication type. 
The current state is very experimental.

For all contributors: Please provide your suggestions!

We would need somebody (a historian would be the best choice -- 
Jan/Christian -- anybody else?) for generating and maintaining a 
specification file for this type. While developing jox.bst, Maarten 
Wisse maintained a file 'specsoxford.tex', which contained something 
like this:

ARTICLE citation: <firstname> <surname>,
`<articletitle>',\footnote{Notice the place of the comma: after the
   quotation mark! This is different from CMS} <titleaddon>,
\textit{<journalname>} <volume>:<number> (<month> <year>), <url> --
<urldate>,

ARTICLE bibliography: <surname>, <firstname>, `<articletitle>',
<titleaddon>, \textit{<journalname>} <volume>:<number> (<month>
<year>), <url> -- <urldate>, <pages>, <note>. \par [<annote>]

important warnings: urldate if not url, number if not volume, month if
not year, year if not volume.

But let me say my time is still very rare -- so please be patient.

> If there's work going on with the @ARCHIVAL support at present anyway,
> would be nice to have the following features and fixes, which should be
> more or less trivial to implement:
> 
> - customizable archive separator (currently fixed ", " while I need ".".
> Easily fixable by hacking around in the BibTeX style.)

Yes, this could be done very easily if this type is working properly.

> - currently \setstretch is ignored between archival entries in the
> bibliography; within the entries it's OK.  This should also be rather
> trivial.

> - uniform alignment of archival entries from the same subarchive or
> possibly archive in the bibliography; at present, a fixed amount of
> space gets inserted between the signature and the archname, resulting in
> a rather ragged appearance if the signatures have different lengths.
> This should not be too difficult to fix in the .sty file (something in
> the general direction of putting the signatures in a box, determining
> the maximum width on the first LaTeX run, setting the box width on the
> second run)

I think, we'll need a complete rewrite of this algorithm.

So long,

Jens


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/9rHolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jurabib/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/