none
Bibliography & Citations 1011 RRS feed

All replies

  • Edit: Actually, I notice elsewhere that you had already looked for all these links on the Wayback Machine, and so on. But are you looking for a particular piece of information?

    You should be able to find the article using the Wayback Machine ( https://web.archive.org ), e.g. at https://web.archive.org/web/20080122131621/http://blogs.msdn.com/microsoft_office_word/archive/2007/12/14/bibliography-citations-1011.aspx

    A
    s far as I can tell, there was only one follow-up which is still available at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2009/04/29/bibliography-citations-102-building-custom-styles/

    A
    lthough I haven't checked recently, Microsoft's documentation on this topic has always been pretty dire. I have never found a good overview that describes *all* the various files involved and what items Word actually passes to the .xsl script. A couple of things to look out for are:
     a. there were changes between Word versions (to do with language/regional support) which mean that coding for 2016 has to be a bit different from coding for 2007
     b. The locations of the .xsl and other files have changed over the years (well, OK, that is true for Word as a whole). This is particularly so on Mac Word, where at one time you seemed to have to modify the Mac application itself. Although I think the location of the .xsl files has has now been sorted out in Mac Office 365 Ido not think the same thing is true of some of the other support files.
     c. Mac Word used to have at least one Bibliographic feature (Footnote Citations) that Windows Word did not. I think that has also disappeared in Mac Office 365.
     d. Mac Word used to be provided with a different set of Bibliographic Styles than Windows Word. I haven't checked that recently.

    You may find the material that Yves Dhondt produced many years ago useful - I do not know if there is an "official" source for this but a lot of it can be found at https://github.com/codingo/BibWord



    Peter Jamieson


    Thursday, May 30, 2019 10:11 AM
  • Hi Peter:

    Thanks for the links.  Strange, when I use the link I had recorded for the first article, it shows the "being moved" message in the wayback machine too. But when I use the link you proivided there are lots of copies of it.I

    I hadn't been able to find the second article at all (and I was hoping for more than just the 2 ...<G>) , so it is good to have it. Unfortunately the second article is missing 2 screen captures at the end.

    It wasn't in wayback, so I added it. I wish MS didn't block most of it's pages from being saved by wayback. I keep running across old links that no longer work, or have been "updated", wiping out info about older versions.

    No I was not looking for anything specific. I was doing general research on the topic to answer a question on the Answers.com forum. Yes, it is a very esoteric subject with painfully little information available to the public. Sadly, creating new bibliography styles in sync with the publication of updated standards is at the bottom of MS's priority list. Every year I see a few questions about how to get bibliography / citations to do something different to accomodate changes in the standard, or specialized unsupported local standards.


    <edit> I won't mark this as answer yet, in the hope that someone else will have more suggestions.
    • Edited by Rohn007MVP Thursday, May 30, 2019 11:17 AM
    Thursday, May 30, 2019 11:16 AM
  • I had a similar problem with Wayback - originally it didn't display the earlier copies. But either I didn't navigate properly, or ended up using a slightly different URL to search. I tend not to spend too much time investigating such things these days!

    There are plenty of old bits of MS documentation (e.g. in the old Support KB) that I think would have been retained (somewhere) if they had maintained the list of Word versions that the articles applied to. But there it is. At one point their shift to using Github for VBA documentation seemed to be paying some dividends. I haven't kept track of that lately, but it would probably be the best place to build documentation for other objects/structures used in Office. 

    <<
    Sadly, creating new bibliography styles in sync with the publication of updated standards is at the bottom of MS's priority list. Every year I see a few questions about how to get bibliography / citations to do something different to accomodate changes in the standard, or specialized unsupported local standards.
    >>

    According to uservoice, support for MLA 8 went to "planned" status around June 2017. No sign of that yet here. After looking at MLA 8 in more depth a while back, I suspect MS might have a lot of trouble fitting it within their existing structure - it seems that the standards setters realise that they have to respond to the fact that an Internet-based source might have to have multiple levels of referencing to pin it down. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Microsoft would prefer to go in the direction of the more web-based Bibliographic features so that people can pick up standardised references for re-use, and so on.

    I have a suspicion that the decision to use XSLT could have been made by someone who had been working with XML/XSL and saw an opportunity to put it to use. Perhaps even an intern. Although XSLT should in theory be a good fit for this kind of job, it seems to me that the code they ended up with is sufficiently difficult to follow, particularly since it's mostly undocumented, that XSLT is probably in fact a poor choice. Microsoft could really use some sort of sandboxed mini-VBA for this kind of task, IMO, and I don't think we're ever going to see any effort going into that kind of thing! XSLT2 might have helped, but Microsoft have never gone beyond v 1. Also, for XSLT in general in the Microsoft world you can add custom stuff written in .NET, but all my attempts to do that when called XSLT from Word seemed to fail on security grounds.

    I've occasionally modified .xsl Styles in response to Answers users - my posts are more difficult to find now as my posts there are under "A. User". I probably would have put a bit more research effort in had I had any feedback, particularly on problems and unintended side-effects. 


    Peter Jamieson

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 1:13 PM
  • I was doing the research to see if it was worth my while to try to learn it to write the updates myself. From what you just said I guess not. If MS hasn't been able to deliver MLA 8 in 2 years, I doubt I will be able to do better without any documentations.

    Yes, I could see MS "improving" references out of Word, the same way they did with Spelling and the Equation Editor, making it web based and giving it only to 365 subscribers.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 8:25 PM