On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 18:07 +0100, Hilmar Preusse wrote: > > I'm only working closely with LaTeX for a year. I used to think > > that BibTeX is "the one and only" solution for the bibliographies > > in LaTeX, but as it doesn't support Unicode yet, I'm beginning to > > doubt. Actually, BibTeX + iconv *is* an option for me, but maybe > > there is a much better alternative? > > > > What do people use for the bibliographies nowdays? > > > I really, really don't know -- I'm sorry! I'm putting this mail back > into the BTS. Frank, Norbert, Ralf, Jan: if you have an answer please > post it here. I guess biblatex is not an replacement either...
No, biblatex works on the formating part, i.e. you no longer have to hack BST files in reverse polish notation in order to achive certain effects. CrossTeX http://www.cs.cornell.edu/People/egs/crosstex/ might be a possibility, but I haven't tried it myself. I do remember though that there has been a discussion on comp.text.tex during the last half year or so about utf8 and BibTeX. A search on groups.google.com might be useful. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
