Alan G Isaac wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Richard Heck apparently wrote:
BibLaTeX, soon to be the new standard
Can you provide the background for this claim?
It's based upon my sense of the enthusiasm that BibLaTeX has generated
on comp.text.tex. There really are a lot of problems with BibTeX, as
useful as it can surely be. One problem is that defining custom formats
is a nightmare for most people, because the language in which bst files
are written is very difficult. I learned it and can use it, but it's not
for the sane, and there's no way for ordinary users to achieve the
levels of customization they want. Second, the machinery for defining
citation formats and the like is even worse. There is absolutely no way
for an ordinary users to define a new citation format. Certainly natbib
and jurabib offer a lot of options, but the latter is extremely complex,
and even then it's not always possible to get what you want.
The great promise of BibLaTeX is that it will solve these problems.
Richard
--
==================================================================
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor of Philosophy
Brown University
http://frege.brown.edu/heck/
==================================================================
Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de
Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC
Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at:
http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
