From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/8924 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Bruce D'Arcus" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: m-bib, xml, etc. Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:05:04 -0400 (EDT) Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <8896998.1028559904579.JavaMail.darcusb@muohio.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035399288 31480 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 18:54:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:54:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ntg-context@ntg.nl Original-To: Taco Hoekwater Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:8924 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:8924 Sounds great! I can't comment on any technical issues because I don't know much about xml. I do, however, know what I need in a bib system, and so will be happy to give input going forward. It sounds like I ought to wait a bit before moving my fairly complex bib database off of Endnote though, and go with xml rather than bibtex. Any sense of timeframe here Taco? Also, has anyone taken a look at refDB? see http://refdb.sourceforge.net It's a bib system built on MySQL that processes both Docbook and LaTeX documents. Bruce Taco Hoekwater wrote: >Hi all, > >See the questions by Bruce included below. Before I get to actually >doing something with it, I think it is best to outline my plans with >the bibliography module. > >1. I intend to switch to using XML as input format, using the >bibteXML DTD (loose format) as definition file. > >See http://bibtexml.sourceforge.net for details of this project. > >A big advantage of using this is that we can run piggyback on >their bibtex/marc conversion tool :) > >I'm not sure whether to keep the current syntax. Advantage: >easy backward compatibily. Downside: more complex code and >possible confusion. Personally, I prefer to drop the support >for the old syntax altogether (perhaps providing a conversion >script?) > >2. Add support for citations with tagged data as requested >by Bruce (and previously by other people). > >3. At the same time, drop support for latex \cite syntax. >(At that time it is no longer needed), and go for a more >standard context syntax using > > \cite[][ or ] > >4. create a bibl-XXX definition wizard (same functionality > as makebst) > > >On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:56:12 -0400 (EDT), Bruce wrote: > >> >> Hi Taco, >> >> I've been searching for information about m-bib as I'm trying to get it >> working, and came across this very interesting post of yours regarding >> your plans to replace bibtex with an xml-based system. First, though, >> two simple questions: >> >> 1) Is it now possible to have a citation in the form (see Smith, 1990, >> page 34)? >> 2) I was led to believe I can use any bst I would use with LaTeX with >> ConTeXt. But reading the m-bib doc suggests this isn't the case. Can >> you please explain? One of the nice things of the BibTeX world is >> makebst, and I'd like to be able to use bsts generated with it. >> >> Now to the bigger question regarding the below. Any update on the >> status of this shift to xml? >> >> I ask because I currently use Word and Endnote. Because I am in the >> social sciences, no publisher will accept docs in TeX, so I want to >> find a simple way that I can use bib data and documents to produce pdf >> via LaTeX and/or ConTeXt and something that Word can understand (html >> and/or rtf; but am told Word can read xml, but don't know what this >> means in practice). I still can't figure out how to do this though. >> Any thoughts/updates/ideas would be much appreciated! >> >> Bruce >> >> >> From: Taco Hoekwater >> Subject: Re: m-bib: passing extra information to \cite >> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 14:48:06 +0200 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------- >> >> Hans Hagen wrote: >> > >> > \definecomplexorsimple\cite >> > >> > now \cite[bla] and \cite{bla} both work (but i favor the [] only >> approach). >> >> Roughly speaking, this is what happens now. But soon we will probably >> have >> calling conventions like \cite[...][...][..=..] or \cite >> {..}[..][..]{..} >> (more or less the same as for \in), and supporting the latex syntax is >> getting problematic. Besides that, there is usually other stuff wrong >> with bibtex (latex) databases, like commands that are defined in the >> preamble using \newcommand; \text... commands in the text; etc. >> >> Eventually, I plan to phase out bibtex alltogether, and replace it with >> an XML input filter (with a formalized DTD). >> >> -- >> groeten, >> >> Taco >> >> > > >-- >groeten, > >Taco >