Re: [Q] url in bibliography

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 07:45:16AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On 2016/10/27 09:01:01 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:19:36AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> I have a question regarding your commit 29650119a215 ("Update bibliography").
> >>
> >> In the 1st hunk,
> >>
> >>> +@unpublished{PaulEMcKennneyToolKitP0232R0
> >>> +,Author="Paul E. McKenney and Michael Wong and Maged Michael"
> >>> +,Title="P0232R0: A Concurrency ToolKit for Structured Deferral or Optimistic
> >>> +Speculation"
> >>> +,month="February"
> >>> +,day="12"
> >>> +,year="2016"
> >>> +,note="\url{http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0232r0.pdf}"
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> you chose the format 'note="\url{http://...}"'.
> >>
> >> In the 2nd hunk,
> >>
> >>> +@unpublished{HansBoehm2012seqlockC11
> >>> +,author="Hans-J. Boehm"
> >>> +,title="Can Seqlocks Get Along With Programming Language Memory Models?"
> >>> +,Year="2012"
> >>> +,Month="June"
> >>> +,Day="6"
> >>> +,Note="HPL-2012-68"
> >>> +,url={http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2012/HPL-2012-68.pdf}
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>
> >> you chose the format 'url={http://...}'.
> >>
> >> There are other format such as 'note="Available \url{http://...}
> >> [Viewed Month Day, Year]"' in the other part of bibliography.
> >>
> >> I'm wondering what is the rule which format to choose in expressing urls.
> >> Could you enlighten me?
> > 
> > It has varied over time.  :-/
> > 
> > I have been using LaTeX and accumulating .bib entries since before "url="
> > and "\url" existed, in fact since before the web existed.  The "Available"
> > syntax was required for my Ph.D. dissertation, but I have been backing
> > away from it because it is ugly and takes up a lot of space.
> > 
> > So, what would you suggest?  ;-)
> > 
> > One constraint...  The "unpublished" entries must have a "note" field,
> > so the ",note=\url{" form seems necessary in those cases, at least
> > when there is no technical report number or some such.  In most other
> > types of bib entries, it is quite possible that "url=" look better.
> > 
> > One thing to keep in mind, also.  The .bib files in perfbook are copies
> > of a master .bib git tree that I keep privately, in part because I
> > never dreamed back in 1987 that I would ever be making the comments in
> > the .bib files public, and I never have gotten time to clean them up.
> > Plus some of the not-for-public-consumption comments are quite useful,
> > so I don't want to delete them.  And yes, the oldest bib entries really
> > were collected the old-fashioned way, by going to a physical library,
> > holding a physical book/magazine/journal/whatever, writing the information
> > down on paper, then going back to my desk and typing it all into my
> > terminal.  Which in some cases would have been a 24x80 dumb terminal
> > (like a VT100), but in other cases might have been an X terminal,
> > a Sun workstation, or, later, a PC running X.
> > 
> > So my normal process requires me to apply the patches twice, often by
> > hand to the private git tree.  Which is fine normally, but might need
> > some help for a mass-change patch set.  For example, perhaps a script.
> > 
> > Suggestions?
> >
> 
> So, these bib files are an library collected for nearly three decades!!!
> They are invaluable as they are, and I'd appreciate your decision to
> make them public.

Unfortunately, many of the comments on the early entries reflect my
relative youth and impetuosity, so unless or until I get time to edit
the whole mess so as to avoid offending any number of authors (to say
nothing of their disciples!), I must keep the originals private.

> There are two issues in urls in the bib files.
> One is the inconsistency of format discussed here.
> The other is the dead links. There are quite a few urls that end up in
> "not found" now. Maintaining urls would require a great deal of work itself...
> 
> To make the format consistent, a script would work. But before beginning
> implementation, we need to clarify what the script would do.
> So I'll make some sample replacement patches to confirm your preference.

Sounds good, and I look forward to seeing them!

							Thanx, Paul