I suggest you ...

← General

Sync with biblatex

I really like the current BibTeX syncing feature. However, supporting the more modern biblatex package (http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/entries/biblatex.html) which supports new features such as Unicode could be very useful.

The file syntax is very similar to BibTex but the two do have some differences. I ask that there be an option to 'export' to a biblatex file as opposed to a BibTex file.

Thank you

145 votes
Vote
Sign in
Signed in as (Sign out)
Close
Close
You have left! (?) (thinking…)
Matt WilliamsMatt Williams shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
Ryan HopeRyan Hope shared a merged idea: Please support biblatex, bibtex is going the way of the Dodo.  ·   · 
MaxMax shared a merged idea: Give the option to export bibtex files as bibtex or biblatex  ·   · 

13 comments

Sign in
Signed in as (Sign out)
Close
Close
Submitting...
  • VicentVicent commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I also vote for this, but I don't have votes left! :D

    I think a clearer integration between Mendeley and BibLaTeX would be perfect.

  • fnurlfnurl commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Yes, as other comments have pointed out, BibLaTeX has a more extensive set of fields and defined support for electronic publications, doi:s etc.

    Also, there are defined fields for storing things like eventtitle, eventdate, venue, and so on. It is really frustrating not to be able to store all available information. This is e.g. why I have switched from being a paying Papers 2 user to a BibDesk user.

  • Stefan LStefan L commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    From my current work, I would suggest the following features as most important:
    - transformation of webpage-entries to type @online in bib-file [biblatex will then print the URL in the references]. Should be compatible with bibtex anyway. Also, the output of last-access would be crucial.
    - Support of subtitle-field. This enables the correct, say full title being printed in the references list but only the main title when used for citing. [i.e.: title: "Modern History", subtitle: "An interpretation from unexpected angles" instead of "Modern History: An interpretation from unexpected angles"]
    Thank you!

  • Mikael ÖhmanMikael Öhman commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Biblatex defines a decent set of fields, as opposed to dumping everything unknown into "@mis"c and "note={}"

    Exporting the new standard fields should be plenty.

    There is also a bunch of special fields, such as "options", "sortkey", and also entry sets (which doesn't seem reasonable to try to incorporate with mendeley).

  • Harri K.Harri K. commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Hi Robert,

    thanks for a quick response! I guess the biggest change biblatex makes to traditional bibtex is the addition of lots of new data fields and some new entry types. Also, some of the old field names have been changed (like journal -> journaltitle) and the functionality of some others somewhat changed (like month being an integer instead of string). The package documentation lists all the new fields and entry types, in section 2, Database Guide:

    http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/biblatex/doc/biblatex.pdf

    It seems too, that there are quite some fields that biblatex uses that do not have a direct representation in Mendeley's own data scheme. Some of these are very useful, like the 'hyphenation' field which can be used to define the hyphenation patterns used for the entry. The new database structure biblatex uses is pretty detailed.

    In addition to the changes in the database, the other important change is the possibility to support different encodings in the file, and combined with the use of the new 'biber' program, the biblatex database can actually be in utf-8. This means, that to support biblatex, there needs to be a way to _not_ use any LaTeX escapes for the synced file, but to at least choose utf-8, if not some other most common encodings, too.

    I guess these two are the main issues when considering Mendeley's support for biblatex.

    All the best,

    Harri K.

  • Robert KnightRobert Knight commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Hi Harri,

    Could you list some of those features roughly in order of priority? In other words, what would you need most in order to be able to use Mendeley with Biblatex?

  • Harri K.Harri K. commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Biblatex is definitiely the future of citations & bibliographers in LaTeX, especially with the upcoming LuaTeX and full Unicode support. When working with multilingual documents and citations to research in many languages (as, as shocking it may sound to many, us historians still often do), biblatex offers unique possibilities. Also, the support for multiple editions of a work, translations, later re-editions and multivolume publications are all necessary features. Currently, it does not seem to me that Mendeley – as wonderful it otherwise is – is really up to the job of supporting these extended features that biblatex offers.

    So this is more or less a blocking issue for me.

  • Alex BallAlex Ball commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I don't think it would be an exaggeration to suggest that biblatex is the future of citation in LaTeX. I've been using it in place of plain BibTeX for some years now, and lack of biblatex support is why I (a) didn't start using Mendeley sooner, and (b) have some difficulty integrating it with my workflow.

  • Torsten HeinemannTorsten Heinemann commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    It would be great to have the biblatex field as entry types and entry fields already such as subtitle, hypenation, origyear etc. It can't be to difficult to add this features to Mendeley IMHO but would really improve the Mendeley experience and make it even more useful.

General: Desktop

Feedback and Knowledge Base

(thinking…)