Re: Question about debian/upstream reference
Hello,
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 11:20 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I don't understand that - are you talking about how the BibTex output
> looks like? Isn't that controlled by the particular style one chooses?
Of course it is, and unless one edits the style file, when using pages
to indicate the article number it results in something like "8, page
20" or 8,20, or, if a "number" 1 is given to silence Bibtex, the result
is "8(1),20", but the output suggested from the publisher (and used on
their web page) is 8:20, and this is easiest achieved by setting the
"Volume" tag to 8:20.
> I think it would be more valuable to have the correct metadata than to
> have "correct" display on the task pages.
IMO neither of the two ways to represent the volume:article in the
metadata is correct, and between two wrongs I'd prefer the one that
makes the reference on the tasks page look the same way like the
reference is given on the publishers web page and like it should appear
in an article.
> > Of course, a better option would be to have an article-number tag in the
> > BibTex entry, but this would require to patch all bib-style files to
> > support it.
> What is wrong with using the page number?
IMHO it is just as wrong as encoding the article number within the
volume with the latter having the advantage I described above.
The "correct" solution would probably be to add a "Article-Number" tag
to the debian/upstream file that is then used accordingly to create the
reference on the tasks page and a debian.bib file that creates the
desired output. The question is, would this be worth the effort?
Best regards,
Gert
Reply to: