>>Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:47:44 -0500 >>From: Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: Re: Re: customizing natbib >> >>On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:51:44AM, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote: >>> The main point is to avoid a dialect of bib records in amsref, >>> that is to keep with the existing fields for the same >>> information. >> >>Well, now we are again in the shooting in the foot question. I >>think, that it should be allowed (and it is the responsibility of >>everyone, what he does), but on the other hand I am pretty sure, >>that it is not the issue, where some agreement can be found, >>because it is (I am afraid) a pure religious issue.
I'm afraid there is a misunderstanding there: I probably stick to bibrecords because I do not know the amsrefs facilities. The examples you gave shown inline bibdata so I thought that it looked like a data field improvement of the actual inline typein facility of LyX and Latex (as opposed to external processing of a database). My religion there (if any) is to use the most atomic data structure as the information source and tune it to various needs through processing. If amsrefs is richer than bibrecords and associated to a more powerful processing tool (more powerful than bibtex, I mean), I'm ready to use it right now if I can convert easily my actual bibrecords without loosing information, and I I can check record sanity with a tool like bibclean. I will need the equivalent of french .bst files, I guess. I suppose I could get more information on the ams site, I will have a look ASAP. Good evening -- Jean-Pierre
