On 27 mei, 16:51, grammatim wrote:
On May 27, 10:20*am, "Yves Dhondt" wrote:
"grammatim" wrote in message
...
(a) Most of us here do not use Macs.
The OP didn't say he did or did not. I just pointed out that Word 2008
supports it out of the box.
Here and below, I am, obviously, not addressing the specific question
of the OP, but the general issues of Word's lousy bibliography tool --
which you inexplicably defend as though you personally were
responsible for all its flaws.
Considering that styles between 2007 and 2008 are interchangable (there are
one or two caveats), the OP could even ask the stylesheets from someone who
has 2008 and use them in 2007 to fit his needs.
That sounds an awful lot like violation of the EULA.
Could be. But Microsoft employees suggest that you start from their
styles to create your own one rather than starting from scratch
(something I personally don't agree with due to their complexity). So
copying the style and adapting one or two things (the caveats I
mentioned) would be an allowed step. I agree that it is probably a
grey area.
(b) Very, very few people have "minimal," or _any_, XSLT knowledge.
And maybe the OP has. Who knows? And even if he doesn't, he might have a
friend who does and wants to help him. Again, I just pointed out the option
and provided some starting place to search for information.
That's a very big "maybe." "Maybe" if he did, he wouldn't have had to
ask his question here.
The fact that you aren't capable of manipulating the stylesheets and are
frustrated by that fact doesn't mean there aren't enough people out there
who can.
It would be interesting to learn how many such people there are. And,
especially, how large the intersection of that group of people with
the group of people that need to use scholarly documentation tools is.
XML, and its manipulation through XSLT, is pretty basic stuff for
anyone following some kind of non-amateur computer class nowadays. And
every computer engineering/science student probably has to do at least
one report, so that would lead to a decent amount of people capable of
creating a style. Of course, the focus field of the types of
stylesheets from that angle could be limited.
There is the open source community which contains people who create
stuff because they can, not because they need it. I needed a style for
IEEE so I wrote one. The other styles I don't need or use, I just
write them for fun.
Then there are the 'librarians with a technological background'. The
same people who made their databases available through Z39.50 probably
have the knowledge on board to write the styles.
I'm pretty sure in totall there are a couple of 100000 people out
there who have the necessary knowledge. Of course that doesn't mean
they would want to work on the topic. Especially if Microsoft did
every possible thing to make it hard for them to start.
(c) I looked again at the page you linked, and it still says it hasn't
been updated since Decemter and that it doesn't handle certain
essential properties of CMS reference style.
Maybe it handles enough for what the OP needs. Maybe the OP isn't even
looking for CMS and wants some totally different style. Again, I just
pointed out this option.
"Maybe" it doesn't. Scholars using Chicago style do not usually have
references comprising nothing but the first mention in a footnote with
no bibliography.
(d) When I first started using the Bibliography tool, I posted here a
list of ten ways in which the "Chicago" style does not conform to
Chicago style.
I don't see what this has to do with the OPs question. He or she is asking
about a footnote style which is not in Word 2007 by default, you are talking
about an in-text citation style which is. Besides, who says that most, if
not all, of the issues you posted could be fixed easily? Getting help often
depends on the way you ask for it.
The flaws in "Chicago" style are systemic. There isn't even a blank in
the form for entering the Series of the work -- in _any_ of the ten
styles provided.
And that is exactly why I love this tool and advocate for it. It's the
first time that I see Microsoft come with such an open, generic and
extremely flexible framework. Finally users (albeit requiring certain
skills) can fix the errors themselves and extend the functionality.
So yes, Microsoft made an error by not including the series title. But
you can add an entry to the user interface with only 5 lines of code
(and that's if you outline them nicely because you can just as well
put everything on one line). Of course, adding the field to the form
is one thing, you will still need XSLT knowledge to actually
manipulate and display the series title through your stylesheet.
(e) Not many scholarly references are as simple as your reference to a
novel, but even it would have at least two errors in "Chicago"
Bibliography style. (1) In author-date style (which is the only one
allowed by "Chicago" style), the references are ordered by author and
then by date, not by author and then by title. (This is sensible,
since the reader is referred to a work by its author and its date, not
by its title. Word's insistence on inserting a title into a citation
is ABSOLUTELY NEVER correct in Chicago style.)
The OP was talking about a footnote style, not an author-date style.
According tohttp://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch16/ch16_sec003.htmlthe
examples I posted were correct for a 'first note citation in a work without
full bibliography'.
Rare is the article or monograph that is limited to just such an item.
(2) The state (NY) bzw.
country name is not used after the city name New York; similarly for
all well-known publishing centers, including Boston, London,
Wiesbaden, Leiden, Paris, etc.
If you think that a specific city would be so well-known that it doesn't
need a state, you wouldn't enter the state in the input dialogs in the first
place. As Word only displays the information it has, if you haven't entered
the state, Word wouldn't display it.
But there is a London in Arkansas, California, Indiana, Kentucky, ... Just
like there is a Paris in Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, ... And there
are a couple of New Yorks in the UK as well as a Boston (I guess the
original settlers didn't have much of an imagination). In case of possible
disambiguity, it is always better to provide the extra information.
And if there is a publisher in London, Ontario, then the bibliography
entry lists the Place of Publication as "London, Ont." *The Place of
Publication lists the Place of Publication, not a differentiation of
that place from all other places with a similar name. You don't even
use "Eng." (or "UK") or "Mass." for "Cambridge" with "Cambridge
University Press," :"Harvard University Press," or "MIT Press."
Like I said, if you wouldn't specify the information when entering it
because you assume it is well-known, Word wouldn't (be able to) show
it.
From an algorithmic point of view, if you don't tell the algorithm
what is well-known and what isn't, it can't figure it out. And what is
well-known and what isn't is highly subjective. I'm pretty sure that
if you ask someone in the neighbourhood of London, Ontario where the
London is located you described in your reference, he would think it's
'his London', before thinking of the one in the UK.
On May 26, 4:33 pm, "Yves Dhondt" wrote:
Sigh. Reread my original reply carefully.
1)I stated that Word 2008 for Mac supports footnote citations (as used by
humanities) out of the box.
For example, the book "Angels & Demons" by Dan Brown is cited in a
footnote
by Word 2008 as follows (title in italics):
Dan Brown, Angels & Demons (New York, NY: Bantam Press, 2005)
2)I stated that Word 2007 for Windows does not support footnote citations
out of the box but that if the OP has minimal XSLT knowledge, he could
either try to create the style himself (given the links I posted), or give
the style I made (which is still in beta) a shot.
That style cites the same book also as (again with title in italics):
Dan Brown, Angels & Demons (New York, NY: Bantam Press, 2005)
Yves
--http://bibword.codeplex.com
"grammatim" wrote in message
....
No. He wants to put what Word thinks of as a Bibliography entry into a
footnote, not what Word thinks of as a Citation.
How many times, Yves, have I suggested that you learn what the Chicago
Manual of Style has to say about references in scholarly articles, so
you can seee how abysmally badly Word handles Chicago style
documentation -- and by extension, the others as well?
On May 26, 2:00 pm, "Yves Dhondt" wrote:
If you are talking about the Citations and Bibliography feature in Word,
the
answer is yes but it is not always all that straightforward or easy..
In Word 2008 for Mac, footnote citations are supported out of the box.
Just
add a normal footnote and then insert the citation where you would
insert
the footnote text.
In Word 2007 for Windows, footnote citations are not supported out of
the
box. But as the feature is extendable, you could add your own style if
you
have some basic XSLT knowledge. The following articles might help
you:http://blogs.msdn.com/microsoft_offi...7/12/14/biblio......
Also, a beta version of an attempt at the CMS footnote style I wrote can
be
found throughhttp://bibword.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.aspx?title=Styles
Yves
--http://bibword.codeplex.com
"jack" wrote in message
...
Is there a way to use a bibliography entry as a footnote?--- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -