0

I've just encountered a question tagged with {bbl}. As far as I can tell this is no useful tag as most of the questions are either closed or deal with problems with bibliographical auxiliary files. So should {bbl} become a synonym of {auxiliary-files}?

  • 3
    don't they deal with .bbl files specifically? I don't see making it a synonym for auxiliary-files would help, there isn't much in common between .bbl and .aux other than the faq about deleting them or not deleting them. – David Carlisle May 15 '17 at 16:07
  • @DavidCarlisle I thought tags should be self-explanatory. Why aren't there tags for ind, glo etc. if the distinction is that important? – TeXnician May 15 '17 at 19:36
  • 1
    bbl being about .bbl files seems fairly self explanatory to me. There's probably more you could say about bbl files generation via bibtex or biblatex or whatever than about .ind files , but in any case the tags get created just as people find them useful, if someone wanted to ask about .ind file formats, having a tag for that wouldn't be such a terrible thing. Given that the existing bbl tagged files are about bbl files I don't see what would be gained by tagging them only with a more general tag. But anyway no need to convince me either way, see what others say... – David Carlisle May 15 '17 at 21:12
  • 2
    As the bbl is not only an auxiliary file but holds the complete and formatted bibliography (at least for the BibTeX system), i wouldn't treat it as an auxiliary file. This is a different case for biblatex though. – Johannes_B May 17 '17 at 4:16
  • @Johannes_B So maybe it should be synonym of a bibliographic tag? – TeXnician May 17 '17 at 4:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .