[pmwiki-users] bibliographies revisited
john.rankin at affinity.co.nz
Tue Sep 26 19:20:23 CDT 2006
The recent discussion on adding bibliography support to pmwiki
has died down amidst all the 2.2 excitement.
I have developed a plan and approach that would progressively
add rich bibliography functionality -- see
This reflects the priorities that people have expressed and a
crawl - walk - run development cycle.
I'd like comment on 3 big questions:
1. what is the downside to storing each citation in its own wiki
page, where the unique reference id becomes the page name?
assume we can import and export BibTeX files with such a
structure and can solve the issue of characters used in
BibTeX ref-ids that are not allowed in page names
our local discussions led us to the view that a page per
citation is the best wiki way to approach this problem,
but others may see issues with this approach that we
2. what should the markup be to refer to a citation? options
(and my thoughts) include:
Cite:ref-id (behaves like a special intermap, but implies
[[Cite:ref-id | alternate text]] is allowed and IMO the
reference style should be standardised so alternate text
would at best be deprecated and may be disallowed)
(:cite ref-id:) (non-standard to use directive markup
for a link so I like this the least of the options --
the markup should fit within existing pmwiki usage)
REF(ref-id) or CIT(ref-id) (Wikipublisher adds EQ(id),
FIG(id) and TAB(id) to define references to equations,
figures and tables, but this is not a standard pmwiki
some set of markup characters around a ref-id, such as
[:ref-id:] (I can think of many possible markups, but
none is particularly compelling)
On the whole, I lean towards REF(id) but could be talked
out of it, provided that the alternative also handles
references to equations, tables and figures.
3. As this represents a fairly substantial development
effort, is anyone able to support the development
cost, either in the form of money or time?
More information about the pmwiki-users