![]() ![]() Even taking all the complaints leveled at LaTeX at face value, using HTML/CSS looks like pure hell to me. I have heard HTML/CSS mentioned as an alternative and I pray every day this time will never come. And usually fastest is just to write it manually. When I get a bibtex entry from some external source, It usually needs tweaking. yes, to be safe, one needs these weird latex formatting for foreign characters.ģD. ![]() Why? Why? Yes, you can fix it by putting the ģC. Bibtex (or most styles) automatically removes capitalization in titles ("Generalizations of dyck words"). So you end up including it in a NOTE field, which of course gets it duplicated in those styles that do print URLs.ģA. ![]() With grey literature, a URL is often necessary, but many bibliography styles don't print URLs. With a wandering bib file, which ones do you cater to? No way to do right by them all.ĢC. There are some that print both, which is redundant. There are ones that print URLs but not DOIs. There are bibliography styles that print DOI fields but not URLs. You just update the reference, right? Wrong, of course, because your old references now lead to the wrong pages, sections, theorems.ĢB. A book gets a reedition, or an arXiv preprint gets updated. Unfortunately, this creates lots of problems:ĢA. Writing bibitems is probably as painless as it could be, but still painful enough that most people have "wandering" bib files that move from project to project. It doesn't help that many of the warnings are false alarms.Ģ. No way you'll notice until you look carefully at the bibliography or read the bibtex log. A common mistake (particularly when copypasting) is accidentally having two AUTHOR fields in a bibitem, which causes the second to be ignored. Nice and slick unfortunately it means that all warnings get hidden from view. Instead, everyone eventually uses some form of script that does "pdflatex bibtex pdflatex pdflatex" or something like this. Does anyone run bibtex directly from the command line? No, it's an extra step and the syntax is hard to memorize (should it run on the tex or the bib, and with or without the extension?). Not everything wrong with bibtex is a bug the big problem is that bibtex is not adapted to its modern usage. I have seen very few fully correct bibliographies written with bibtex in the wild. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |