biblatex-iso690
biblatex-iso690 copied to clipboard
michal-h21
The dot at the very end of each entry?
Introduced in 802e27d71bd625e44c7cb740caaab70c13374715 as part of #99 (patent enhancements).
The standard says [1]
A consistent system of punctuation and typography should be used throughout a list of references. Each element of a reference should be clearly separated from subsequent elements by punctuation or change of typeface.
NOTE In order to emphasize the importance of consistency, a uniform scheme of punctuation is used in the examples in this International Standard. The scheme is purely illustrative and does not form part of the recommendations.
The Note statement is not absolutely true, as far as I can see there is no dot at the end when the availability information is the last element of an entry, and a dot otherwise.
Default biblatex \finentrypunct is \addperiod, should we stick with that?
[1] ISO 690: Information and documentation -- Guidelines for bibliographic references and citations to information resources. Third edition. Geneva: The International Organization for Standardization, 2010.
That is pretty funny because up to now I only worked with the German version of the norm, where all examples do not have an end dot. Now I donwnloaded the English version, too and comparing it with the German version the examples are exactly the same. But in the English version there is an end dot except for the cases with the availability information being the last element as you said.
It seems as if the question is language dependent?!
It seems as if the question is language dependent?!
Therefore my best idea would be to make this a package option
Therefore my best idea would be to make this a package option
This is I also came up with :smiley: But maybe it's just a simple hack for our Style Guide @wiki..
Since we seem to have had the same idea about this issue, I quickly made a PR.
I am slightly inclined to let users adjust this punctuation style in a document preamble, since it's only a one liner solution that could be easily done. Of course it would be more convenient to include it as a package option, but then we can do that also for other style hacks.. I mean, it's more of a design decision than an implementation one. But I may be wrong. WDYT @michal-h21 or @moewew ?
@DavidLuptak package options are always more user friendly, so if there is a demand, and even PR, then I think it is OK to add them.
Personally, I don't think everything needs to be an option. biblatex has a variety of interfaces, some of which would be extremely hard to pull of as options in the generality they currently offer. But I know that a number of users seem to prefer options over other interfaces.
Ultimately, this is a design decision and not a technical issue, so do what feels right in terms of this style's philosophy.
Finally I merged #102 even though I am not 100 % sure about this decision (but we can change it at any time in the future).
@michal-h21 I know there are still some issues open to be resolved, but since we are tight on time, we may better release than miss TL 2022. I prepared the files, could you please publish to CTAN?