- From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 17:52:26 -0400
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: ... > I agree that BibTeX is suboptimal. But what should we use instead? > > (The biblatex vocabulary seems unnecessarily incompatible with BibTeX's, > and the latter appears to have more deployed support, which was one of the > primary concerns that led to its vocabulary being picked.) I think if you really insist on including a bibliographic vocabulary in the HTML 5 spec (which as I've said, I don't really agree with, precisely because this is hard stuff), then you need to reassess/clarify the requirements a bit. For example, what do you mean by "unnecessarily incompatible with BibTeX"? If you simply mean it's a superset, and that therefore going from biblatex to bibtex cannot be totally lossless, then that's unavoidable, and I think a requirement that needs changing. Or is there some other aspect of "incompatibility" you're seeing? Bruce
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 14:52:26 UTC