Re: tasks overview wishlist: Canonical citing reference
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 04:41:45PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> My idea was actually to have the citations.bib and/or references.bib
> in /usr/share/doc/<package> as you say, and have the .doc-base file
> include something like:
>
> Format: BibTeX
> Files: /usr/share/doc/<package>/*.bib
Isn't this going to need changes to doc-base and/or dhelp, or do they
understand the above already?
> Is there an advantage to having the BibTeX data right in the .doc-base
> file? I can't see one, and I think it might confuse .doc-base parsers.
Ok.
> So I think we agree about this. Advantages:
> * It uses (and perhaps reinforces) the doc-base index system,
> which IMO is one of Debian's under-appreciated strengths.
> * It's backward-compatible with old versions of debhelper,
> dhelp/dwww, etc. which will just ignore that section
> of .doc-base.
> * There's a user-visible place for .bib files, which is wherever
> the maintainer feels is the best place for them, we don't need
> to wait for a script to be available to generate it.
> * Metadata are in one place, which is the .bib files, not
> duplicated in .doc-base and .bib files and plain formats and
> HTML and control, so the maintainer only has to change or update
> things once.
> * It doesn't bloat Packages or control.
> * It's future-expandable, as new versions of dhelp etc. can use
> the .doc-base and .bib files to generate a whole host of new
> user- friendly files, from a master .bib file or other reference
> manager files, to a plain text reference list, to an HTML index
> with links to the DOIs.
> * Scrollkeeper might follow Debian's leadership (again) and make
> use of such metadata.
While I think this doc-base integration is fine and nice, I still think
having the data in free-form in addition is worthwhile.
Michael
Reply to: