On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:25:42AM, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
> In fact, I wanted to stress the fact that database typing
> inside documents (which is a current practice) should be
> avoided because a bibliography tag is by definition an piece of
> data which should be written once correctly for
>>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
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 (
>>Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:30:39 +0100 (CET)
>>From: Guenter Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: Re: Re: customizing natbib
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:25:42 +0100 (MET) wrote "Jean-Pierre.Chretien"
<[EMAI
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:25:42 +0100 (MET) wrote "Jean-Pierre.Chretien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So the question is only about the choice of the standard:
> - using latex in an abstract field (which does not exists in the original
> bib data structure (which knows only about note field AFAIR) or
>>Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:08:11 +0100 (CET)
>>From: Guenter Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: Re: customizing natbib
>>To: "Jean-Pierre.Chretien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:08:07 +0100 (MET) wrote &quo
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:38:09 -0500 wrote Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> another one is to throw bibtex out of the window and use amsrefs
> (on www.ams.org). It does not do any such ugly things.
I had a (admittedly very quick) view at the amsrefs homepage --- looks very
promising. I also read
