Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

I usually use the commands that come with biblatex (like mkbibemph, mkbibquote etc.) only in my bibliography.

What about using them in the text of my document? Should I do that? Are there any advantages?For example, I remember reading something about that the biblatex-commands can rule whether or not the dot is inside or outside the quotation marks. But I don't know whether this is still the case, whether it works and if it is recommended.

So, what about \emph vs. \mkbibemph? Or \mkbibquote vs. "..." vs. \enquote (of csquotes)?

(I think these are the two commands I am most interested in, but I am sure that there are others that also come with biblatex, isn't that so (e.g. \mkbibparens)? What about those?)

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 9 down vote accepted

adding

\show\mkbibemph
\show\mkbibquote

produces

> \mkbibemph=\protected macro:
->\emph .
l.6 \show\mkbibemph


? 
> \mkbibquote=\protected macro:
->\enquote .
l.10 \show\mkbibquote

so the biblatex ones are defined to expand to the normal ones by default.

share|improve this answer
5  
The purpose of having different names is that they can be redefined when working on the bibliography. –  egreg Oct 11 '12 at 13:12
    
@egreg yes that's what I meant by "by default" either way it means there is no harm using them in the main document if you wish I think? –  David Carlisle Oct 11 '12 at 13:54
    
I'd prefer using the "normal" names. –  egreg Oct 11 '12 at 13:56
    
However, \mkbibquote does interact with the punctuation tracker, depending on the language... –  Andrew Swann Sep 8 at 20:33

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.