From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/30826 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Thomas A. Schmitz" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: YABQ (yet another bib question...) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:09:46 +0200 Message-ID: <1055953F-BD85-497D-89F1-20E2A8E22554@uni-bonn.de> References: Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1158329639 20169 80.91.229.2 (15 Sep 2006 14:13:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:13:59 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Fri Sep 15 16:13:53 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GOERI-00040s-5m for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:13:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7831FBCB; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:13:07 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 09414-08; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:12:59 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AA51FDFE; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:12:59 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3507D1FDFE for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:12:55 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 11676-04 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:12:48 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mailout09.sul.t-online.com (mailout09.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.84]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id D61521FBCB for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:12:45 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from fwd29.aul.t-online.de by mailout09.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1GODTB-00037V-00; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:11:01 +0200 Original-Received: from [192.168.0.2] (S8SqOmZBYeH2b7fi9yRhLjYRsVkH0D7aL6XWyMs1TnsSnloUgezsQt@[84.172.89.114]) by fwd29.sul.t-online.de with esmtp id 1GODSw-0cVff60; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:10:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: Original-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-ID: S8SqOmZBYeH2b7fi9yRhLjYRsVkH0D7aL6XWyMs1TnsSnloUgezsQt@t-dialin.net X-TOI-MSGID: ff715eda-967d-4a53-a2a0-cfd79f10cf3c X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.7 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:30826 Archived-At: 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. > Sanjoy, 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 list itself. Am I making sense? Are we working you to the bones? ;-) Best Thomas