Bug#109208: cross-referencing (in)proceedings in bibview

["C.M. Connelly" <cmc@debian.org>]

Um, from what I see, you can certainly use @inproceedings and
@proceedings together.

The @proceedings entry type can have an optional booktitle field.
If you define both booktitle and title, things will work just fine
-- the title from the @inproceedings entry will override the title
defined in the crossreferenced @proceedings entry.  This
workaround appears to be pretty standard, as you'll see if you
consult some BibTeX databases available on line.

If bibview doesn't support adding the additional booktitle field
for a @proceedings entry, then your bug should be filed against
bibview.  If bibview does support such an entry, you could still
file a wishlist bug against bibview suggesting that the upstream
author change the program so that it automatically duplicates the
title field as booktitle, or at least suggests that you might want
to do so.

You could also file a wishlist bug against BibTeX (which is in
tetex-bin), but given how long we've been waiting for BibTeX 1.0
to come out I wouldn't hold my breath for a solution, especially
when there's a well-established workaround.  (According to a note
in the third edition of George Grazter's _Math into LaTeX_, this
situation will be addressed in BibTeX 1.0.)

   CMC

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
 Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his
	    spare time; only by what he does as his work.
			     W.R. Lethaby
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
  C.M. Connelly               cmc@debian.org                   SHC, DS
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-tetex-maint-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org