Re: Re: Splitting up IN... entries

Arne Jørgensen <[email protected]> writes:

> [email protected] (Thomas M. Widmann) writes:
> 
> > I've got an idea: Is there any reason to define the article and the
> > journal together, e.g.:
> > [...]
> > The same applies to InBook -> Book, InCollection -> Book and
> > InProceedings -> Proceedings.
> 
> Cross referencing seems like a cleaner and better solutions. IMHO.

Glad you agree.

> > Currently, both are possible, but it makes the DTD rather complicated.
> > Furthermore, BibTeX will move a crossref'ed entry into the
> > crossref'ing entry if it is crossref'ed only once (actually defined by
> > the -min-crossrefs command line option to BibTeX), but AFAIK this
> > breaks if some entries are defined with crossrefs while other entries
> > are not.
> >
> > So my question is:  Is there any need for allowing both (apart from
> > convenience when inputting the entry)?
> 
> Doing things the right way is a good restriction ;-)

Yes. :-)

For what it's worth, I've now implemented splitting in bib2xml.bst
(the CVS version), so that we can test it out.

All protests are requested before the next release!

/Thomas
-- 
\author{Thomas Widmann\thanks{3/2,  54 Mavisbank Gardens,  Glasgow  G51\,1HL,
Scotland, EU\@. Tel.~+44 (141) 419\,9872.}\\{\tt [email protected]}}