Karen Coyle wrote:
> I just want to note that neither TeX/BibTeX nor TEI are bibliographic
> metadata formats. They are both designed for the encoding of full text.
While this is true in a strict sense with TEI, even there people have
different opinions on the matter, and I think if you look at its
bibliographic model, it's amenable to more MODS-like application.
With BibTeX, while I would call it a format with a bad metadata model, I
would still call it a metadata format. BibTeX files provide the
metadata, .bst files provide the styling logic, and the application
assembles the two for output formatting.
I guess my point would be that yes, it's valuable to keep in mind the
differences, but not to the extent we miss the commonalities.
> As a matter of fact, a good requirements analysis would
> probably be very helpful. Even if we couldn't agree, we would get
> everyone's needs out on the table.
My requirements (and seeing me as a proxy for "end user citation needs")
for inline markup are:
I need to be able to encode titles and other such fields in order to
reliably generate flexible output formatting of citations.
My requirements for variant names are that it is necesary to support