Thank you Matej for your attention to this problem,
Have a nice day,
Wayan
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:32:12 -0500
> From: Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: amsref (was: customizing natbib)
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01:45:58PM +0100, Wayan wrote:
> > thank you. I have already used ERT, but the problem is the
> > citation not appears in the text. I have only use \cite{} and
> > \ocite{}. When I viewed as PostScript, that only show: (?mil99)
> > for \cite{mil99) and () for \ocite{mil99). I am using
> > [author-year]{amsrefs} package with the amsxport style. Could
> > you please tell me what is wrong of my setting? The reference
> > at the end of article is right.
>
> After checking with [EMAIL PROTECTED] I get very quickly
> attached answer.
>
> Have a nice day
>
> Matej
>
> --
> Matej Cepl, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 138 Highland Ave. #10, Somerville, Ma 02143, (617) 623-1488
>
> Ask not for whom the telephone bell tolls ... if thou art in the
> bathtub, it tolls for thee.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> # To: Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> # Subject: Re: amsrefs -- \ocite doesn't work
> # From: Michael John Downes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> # Date: 19 Feb 2002 13:54:19 -0500
> #
> # Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> #
> # > thank you for providing amsrefs package. Unfortunately, I have a
> # > trouble to make it working properly. See attached example, where
> # > \ocite obviously doesn't provide results which I hoped to get.
> #
> # There was a bug when the previous cite key was the same as the next cite
> # key. I posted version 1.18 of amsrefs.sty with this bug (and a couple of
> # others) fixed, you can get a new distribution at
> #
> # ftp://ftp.ams.org/pub/tex/amsrefs.zip
> #
> # Thank you for reporting this problem, it helps us to get the bugs fixed
> # so everyone else will benefit too.
> #
> # I would like to make a suggestion about the usage of \ocite in one
> # instance:
> #
> # > Based on the stage of formation, \ocite{mil99} have divided it ...
> #
> # Because this is used as the subject of the sentence, rather than as an
> # object, I would recommend rather writing the names explicitly, or at
> # least using \citeauthor:
> #
> # Based on the stage of formation, Mil\'esi et al.\ \ycite{mil99}
> # have divided it ...
> #
> # Or:
> #
> # Based on the stage of formation, \citeauthor{mil99} \ycite{mil99}
> # have divided it ...
> #
> # Regards, Michael Downes
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
I Wayan WARMADA
-------------------------
Institut fuer Mineralogie
FG Lagerstaettenforschung
TU Clausthal, Germany
http://139.174.127.123/
-------------------------
