- From: Simon Spiegel <simon@simifilm.ch>
- Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 19:13:54 +0200
Sorry, for my intrusion on this list. I realize that it's cheeky to come to a list only to rant about a specific detail, but I feel that more support for Bruce's position is needed. Just a bit about my background: I don't have any technical training or expertise in software or programming. I'm a scholar in humanities (film studies and German literature) and wrote my PhD thesis in film studies using LaTeX. Although I'm not a programmer by any means, I consider myself an 'advanced user' and quote well informed in terms of bibliographic software. There aren't a lot of bibliographic softwares or other solutions I haven't had a look in the last couple of years. After this introduction, let me just state one thing: To base any kind of future software on BibTeX would be really like using ASCII instead of UT8. Yes, it's really that bad. BibTeX is now almost 20 years old and its shortcomings are well known and have been discussed endlessly. It has an extremely limited model which basically only covers English speaking sciences. As soon as you leave this area (like I have to do daily), you're out of luck with traditional BibTeX. Sure, there are all kind of extensions, but most of them are limited as well and none of them is standardized. I just say ?bookauthor?. Until recently, no BibTeX supported this field, although it's really a basic thing for humanities (Now, if anyone asks why you would need a 'bookauthor' field, I have only one thing to answer: Find out what is needed in different disciplines before settling on a standard). It's a sad fact that the same mistakes are repeated over and over again in the area of bibliographic software. It seems like a natural law that every new software solution dealing with bibliographies always has to start with an extremely limited set of fields like BibTeX. It took nearly two decades until biblatex got rid of most of the basic shortcomings of BibTeX, but somehow other projects don?t seem to learn from this. It doesn't have to be this way. The problems of the existing solutions are known, alternatives do exist. So please hear my plea: Don't go with an ancient model whose shortcomings are well known but use something modern instead. If you absolutely have to use BibTeX, please use at least biblatex which covers most of the problems of traditional BibTeX. simon -- Simon Spiegel Steinhaldenstr. 50 8002 Z?rich Telephon: ++41 44 451 5334 Mobophon: ++41 76 459 60 39 http://www.simifilm.ch ?Goethen getroffen. Beeindruckt.? Unbekannt
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 10:13:54 UTC