[OS X TeX] OT: low-tech bibliographic hyperlinking
rloukano at stp.lingfil.uu.se
Thu May 3 08:11:42 EDT 2007
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Bruno Voisin wrote:
> Le 2 mai 07 Ã 18:50, Simon Spiegel a Ã©crit :
>> Why don't you just use bibtex and biblatex? Much easier and more versatile.
> Just a reluctance (and material difficulty) to invest several days learning
> to use new tools and customizing them to suit specific needs, when for any
> particular project I can get what I need in half a day of handwork say.
> For example, imagine I need to cite three papers:
> Kistovich & Chashechkin 1992
> Kistovich & Chashehckin 1993
> Kistovich & Chashehckin 1998
> in the precise form (Kistovich & Chashechkin 1992, 1993, 1998), with
> "Kistovich & Chashehckin 1992" a hyperlink to Kistovich & Chashechkin (1992)
> in the list of references, "1993" a hyperlink to Kistovich & Chashehckin
> (1993) in that list, and "1998" a hyperlink to Kistovich & Chashehckin (1998)
> in that list. I'm sure getting exactly that with BibTeX would be problematic.
> Or imagine you want to follow rules such that each paper with three authors
> is cited with the names of all three authors on first occurrence, and with
> the first author followed by "et al." on all subsequent occurrences. Or even
> worse: all papers with four authors or more are cited in the form first
> author et al.; this implies that two papers with four authors or more,
> published the same year and with same first author must have additional
> letters "a" and "b" added automatically to their year of publication, so that
> they are cited as "First author et al. (2000a, b)".
> All this I get can get tediously but easily when doing things manually. Using
> BibTeX and specific LaTeX packages, I imagine this is also possible, but I
> fear it would take hours of doc studying then customization. Being always in
> a rush, I'm reluctant to do that.
> And I've also that reluctance to rely on external packages (i.e. those not in
> latex/base) when avoidable: these packages may at any time be discontinued by
> their authors, or incompatible changes may be introduced in any new version,
> or superior packages may be introduced at any time leading you to invest time
> again learning a new syntax, converting your old files, and so forth. I
> prefer stability and working with the same limited set of tools, and invest
> time learning to use these tools to their maximum and push them to their
> But you're certainly right that I should at least give a closer look to
> BibTeX and all the bibliography-related packages. When time allows...
I find myself in exactly the same situation with the time,
bibliography (etc.)... The citation requirement that you describe above
are provided by Springer's package llncs2e (Lecture Notes in Computer
Instructions how to use the llncs style are provided inside the package
and will take you about half an hour.
It seems that most of the conferences in CompSci and math foundations,
use llncs style. I have no idea about Springer's packages in pure math
and physics, so it might be that the rest of the llncs package would not
fit your other typesetting requirements. In particular, hyperref
works but you'll get the references list with the year labels.
I've tried to get the same effect for the references (because I
think they look good) without llncs, in the hard way you describe, but
haven't managed. You can fetch (take a look at) my "test-bibl.tex", its
pdf, etc. from:
It does seem that we have to switch to BiBTeX, as I used it in the past,
and learn BibDesc as soon as time lets...
BTW, I noticed that the doi references at nature.com are simply not
------------------------- Helpful Info -------------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/
List Reminders & Etiquette: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/list/
More information about the MacOSX-TeX