Tell me more ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 10 down vote favorite
4

I've heard (and read) about the new amsrefs system for citations. Is there a good explanation of the pros/cons of amsrefs vis-a-vis bibtex ?

share|improve this question

2 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

I don't think that amsrefs is new, exactly, although updates to it appear to be reasonably recent. I haven't heard of many people using it. The much more recent biblatex package is probably a better way to go — it has a lot of momentum and supports, well, everything you would ever want to do with bibliographies. Some more information can be found in the TeX FAQ:
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=biblatex

share|improve this answer
2  
The advantage of biblatex is that it is designed to work outside of the style of physical science citations, meaning that it has a lot more scope. The biblatex-biber project is also dealing with UTF-8 input for BibTeX files, and trying to come up with a better database structure. So as Will says biblatex has a lot more momentum. – Joseph Wright♦ Jul 30 '10 at 5:27
up vote 1 down vote

One problem with bib-tex is the need for lots of extra {} to get the formatting of titles correct. I find this, personally, to be quite frustrating, and amsrefs is much nicer in this regard.

share|improve this answer
2  
This is not intrinsic to BibTeX. It's the particular style you're using. Use one that doesn't change the case. For example, look at plain.bst and in particular the format.title function. – TH. Sep 17 '10 at 4:16

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.