Re: bibl-apa.tex wrong?

["Matej Barič" <matej.baric@gmail.com>]

> Originally (years ago already), I reverse-engineered apalike from
> latex. It is quite possible I made a error there (or even that
> apalike had it wrong) but if no-one reports a bug it is not noticed.
> Also, I've had quite a few incorrect bug reports about the styles, so
> I am no longer all that eager to change them at a single bug report.
> Two questions: do you have a definitive source somewhere? and are
> there any other problems you see in bibl-apa.tex
I see... well I'd be glad to go through whole APA style recommendation  
and test bibl-apa.tex, but I'm no expert and currently I am really  
busy for a few next weeks.
I don't have a definitive source, but just about any source I have  
seen (including Wikipedia and my faculty rules) says bibl-apa.tex is  
wrong in that case.
As I've started using ConTeXT just a few days ago I couldn't have seen  
any other problems so far but I will collect them if I find them and  
do a little more research on them.
So for now don't bother, but sometime in future I will definitely  
contact you again if I have some more things to fix.
Thanks,
matej
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________