On 2017/02/08 13:41:53 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 06:36:18AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> >> >> Akira >> (from mobile, might be QP encoded) >> >>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 6:10, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:57:23AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:37, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:54:41PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >>>>>>> From 58a0655ab2b5c555bd19a6d7624a9d4413cf1360 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>>>> From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 23:34:47 +0900 >>>>>> Subject: [PATCH 0/5] Bibliography update round 5 >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is round 5 of bibliography updates. >>>>>> Patches 1, 2, and 3 take care of broken urls. Patch 2 contains an >>>>>> alternative link to a webpage capture. >>>>>> Patch 4 is cosmetic fix of UCB in author fields >>>>>> Patch 5 is a different type of update. It adds awareness of "location" >>>>>> field in "inproceedings" entry. Please see the commit log for details. >>>>>> I think this is a reasonable change for perfbook. >>>>> >>>>> I applied the first four, and might be convinced to apply the fifth. >>>>> But first a question -- how many changes would be required to bring >>>>> my old bib entries in line with current practice? >>>> >>>> No change is required. Because this change has effect >>>> only on entries with both "address" and "location". >>>> I thought I explained this somewhere, but missed to do so. >>>> Can this clarification convince you? >>> >>> Ah, thank you for the clarification! And on to the next question... >>> >>> Does it really make sense for me to have both "address" and "location" >>> on a given bib entry? If I am doing something strange (quite likely!), >>> it is probably better for me to fix my strange bib entries than to modify >>> the tools. Especially given the possibility that others might well >>> harvest bib entries from perfbook. >> >> Well, I don't think your usage of "address" field is strange at all. >> It would be easy to find people who do the same. >> >> The fact that genuine alpha style does not recognize "location" entry would support my observation. > > Sorry to continue with the questions, but should perfbook be using > some other bibliography style? The current "alpha" was pretty much an > arbitrary choice. Hmm... For example, there is a Q&A here: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/76566/ This answer recommends to use "venue" field for location. Another Q&A: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/152725/ There seems to be no popular consensus how to handle location of conference in bibliography... Thoughts? Thanks, Akira > > Thanx, Paul > >>> After all, some of my bib entries were old enough to drink almost a >>> decade ago. I guess we can only be thankful that they are unable >>> to do any driving. ;-) >>> >>> Thanx, Paul >>> >> > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe perfbook" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
