# URLs and other information

I am having a problem.

My bib files contains:

@misc{hfs+,
Date-Modified = {2012-10-18 15:44:41 +0100},
Howpublished = {\url{http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/#technotes/tn/tn1150.html}},
Institution = {Apple Computer, Inc.},
Month = {March},
Number = {Technical Note TN1150},
Title = {HFS Plus Volume Format},
Year = {2004}}


and the displayed reference in my bibliography is:

Hfs plus volume format. http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/#technotes/tn/tn1150.html, March 2004.


How can I get something like:

Hfs plus volume format. Technical Note TN1150, http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/#technotes/tn/tn1150.html,
March 2004, Apple Computer, Inc., Last checked 2012-10-18 15:44.

-
Welcome to TeX.SE! Which bibliography style file do you use? Please advise. –  Mico Oct 18 '12 at 17:10

The appearance of typeset bibliographic entries is determined by the bibliography style file you use. You don't state which style file you use, forcing me to assume that you use a fairly generic style such as plainnat. I'll also assume you're using the natbib citation management package.

A minimum working example (MWE) might look like this:

\documentclass{article}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\usepackage{url,natbib}
\begin{document}
\nocite{*}
\bibliography{bibbib}
\end{document}


and a sample .bib file -- called "bibbib.bib", say -- that works with the plainnat bibliography style would look like:

@misc{hfs+,
note = {Apple Computer, Inc., Last checked 2012-10-18 15:44:41 +0100},
howpublished = {\url{http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/#technotes/tn/tn1150.html}},
Month = {March},
Title = {{HFS Plus Volume Format. Technical Note TN1150}},
Year = {2004}
}


Running latex, bibtex, and latex twice more generates this:

-
Just for info: I have a warning here from BibTeX: Warning--to sort, need author or key in hfs+. –  Kurt Oct 18 '12 at 18:32
I noticed that too. I just refactored it and placed Apple Computer Inc. as the author. –  sic2 Oct 18 '12 at 20:14
Indeed, it's better in this case to have an author field. –  Mico Oct 19 '12 at 0:48