Nick Bart

> I would not mind changing the bibtex export to biblatex for good. We could still retain fields like year for backwards compatibility – do you see any problems with...

Update on book/collection: biblatex has both, bibtex has book only. Hence, anything that looks like a book but has an editor and no author should be exported as a biblatex...

"crossref", on the other hand, would have the advantage that at least for those familiar with bibtex/biblatex the new tag’s intended use case would be transparent without further explanation. Besides,...

If a crossref field contains a nonexistent cite key, nothing bad will happen, except that any information that would else be inherited from the crossreferenced = parent entry will not...

Maybe I’m mistaken, but my interpretation is that 4.7 from the 2016-10-26 draft permits *any* year-and-month expression to be replaced by a year-and-season expression – and I think it’s uncontroversial...

@JohnLukeBentley – I know you have been involved in implementing ISO 8601/EDTF for biblatex, and have started the process of joining up to the relevant ISO committee – any additional...

> It was just confirmed on the EDTF mailing list that seasons in intervals will not be supported by the upcoming standard. That decision – if that’s the final word...

> I don't think it's EDTF.js's mission to lie when I'm asking "is this valid ETDF". Absolutely. That’s why I fully agree with treating season intervals, for now, as an...

@JohnLukeBentley – many thanks for sharing these details.

The first serious argument *against* permitting season intervals I’ve seen is this one (by Saašha Metsärantala on the [EDTF mailing list](https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=DATETIME;28210997.1801)): > As far as I remember, intervals including seasons...