Angus Leeming wrote:
> You mean like this? (It appears that great thought can be shared ;-)
Yes. Very good work (only the citation insets don't reflect it quite well here
yet).
> You might say that LyX is "better" than LaTeX here ;-)
Ah, well. Maybe on fridays (BTW: I've counted two smileys).
On Friday 26 April 2002 2:47 pm, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > Here is my proposal.
>
> Having written this, I think about using the key instead of "No Author".
> This would be even more WYSIWYG and more informative perhaps. What do you
> think?
>
> Juergen.
You me
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Here is my proposal.
Having written this, I think about using the key instead of "No Author". This
would be even more WYSIWYG and more informative perhaps. What do you think?
Juergen.
Angus Leeming wrote:
> Cæsar is dead; let him lie!
OK. I'm not interested in tyrants anyway.
> Why don't we do it as natbib does it. (How does it deal with entries that
> have neither an author/editor nor a year?)
Natbib tries to be clever here: if there's no author, the key field is used
inst
On Friday 26 April 2002 12:03 pm, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Since Caesar has been killed, there are problems with some special kind of
> entries: those who cannot be parsed correctly by biblio.C. The citation
> style choice is empty in that case and I cannot chose a style.
> I have collected a
