Re: Question about debian/upstream reference
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 01:10:57PM +0100, Gert Wollny wrote:
> 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.
Well, we will have to agree to disagree then.
To me, having the actual data of the reference not wrong (and I think
using the page field for the article number is not really wrong, but
possible not exactly right, either, while using it in the volume field
is plain wrong) seems more important than making it look like on the
publisher's web page. Once somebody cites that article in a journal
which does not print article numbers as "$VOLUME:$ARTICLE_NUMBER" but
e.g. "($VOLUME), $ARTICLE_NUMBER", the whole thing breaks down.
> 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?
Possibly, no idea. That would certainly be better than incorrectly
overloading the Volume-field.
Michael
Reply to: