[Tex/LaTex] Best practice for quoting a website

best practicesbibtexfootnotesurls

How should I quote a website? E.g. I'm using the android reference.

Here is my BibTeX entry:

@ELECTRONIC{Google2012,
  author = {Google},
  month = {01},
  year = {2012},
  title = {Android Developers},
  language = {english},
  url = {http://developer.android.com/reference/},
}

I quote different parts of that page and I think it is a bad idea adding dozens of references to the same site only to another page.

Actually I'm using this:

The Activity Lifecycle is blah blah\footnote{\url{http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/Activity.html\#Fragments}}.\cite{Google2012}

But I think I should cite it e.g.:

The Activity Lifecycle is blah blah\cite[\url{http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/Activity.html\#Fragments}]{Google2012}.

But that produced a very long line which I don't want. My next try was this here:

The Activity Lifecycle is blah blah\cite[Lifecycle\footnote{\url{http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/Activity.html\#Fragments}}]{Google2012}.

The last one produces some strange errors:

Overfull \hbox (6.45833pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 463--464
[]\T1/lmr/m/n/12 The Ac-ti-vi-ty Li-fe-cy-cle is blah blah[[]Goo12[], []$\T1/lm
tt/m/n/12 http : / / developer . android . com / reference /$
! Use of \@xfootnote doesn't match its definition.
\@ifnextchar ...eserved@d =#1\def \reserved@a {#2}
\def \reserved@b {#3}\futu...
l.467 .../Activity.html\#Fragments}}]{Google2012}.

So what is the best practice for quoting and how can I fix my last solution?

After reading the answers I build my own solution. But I have got some trouble with that quotes in image lables.

Here is the compleate example:

\documentclass[
    a4paper,
    parskip,
    pdftex,
    ]{scrreprt}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[backend=bibtex, natbib=true, citestyle=alphabetic, bibstyle=alphabetic]{biblatex}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage[all]{hypcap}
\usepackage{csquotes}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{blindtext}

\bibliography{source}

\newrobustcmd{\staticURL}[1]{%
  \expandafter\footnote\expandafter{\expandafter\url\expandafter{\detokenize{#1}}}}

\newcommand{\citeUrl}[3]{\cite[#1\staticURL{#2}]{#3}} %what, url, source

\begin{document}
\chapter{Example}
Here is some text related on bluetooth\citeUrl{Activity}{http://developer.android.com/reference/android/bluetooth/package-summary.html\#footer}{Google2012}

\Blindtext

\begin{figure}[htp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=10cm]{img/activity_lifecycle}
  \caption{Activity Lifecycle \citeUrl{Activity}{http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/Activity.html\#Fragments}{Google2012}}
  \label{activity_lifecycle}
\end{figure}
\end{document}

In mention of "Note that # doesn't need to be escaped." I'll get this error:

Chapter 1.
! Illegal parameter number in definition of \reserved@a.
<to be read again> 
                   f
l.26 ...h/package-summary.html#footer}{Google2011}

Best Answer

Since \url switches to a "verbatim" mode it can't go in the argument of another command. You can go over this limitation, in this particular case, with the following code

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{etoolbox,hyperref}

\newrobustcmd{\urlfootnote}[1]{%
  \expandafter\footnote\expandafter{\expandafter\url\expandafter{\detokenize{#1}}}}
\begin{document}
The Activity Lifecycle is blah
blah\cite[Lifecycle\urlfootnote{http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/Activity.html#Fragments}]{Google2012}.
\end{document}

Note that # doesn't need to be escaped.

Related Solutions

[Tex/LaTex] Best practice for getting “If not foo” conditionals

Hard to comment on efficiency (one of your tags) without knowing more context. \footrue and \foofalse are really each just a \let. So if the only reason that this token is let to one definition or another is so that you can decide whether or not to "do stuff" then you don't need the if token at all, then you don't need the test.

Just define

\def\foofalse{\let\dostuff\realstuff}
\def\footrue{\let\dostuff\relax}

then you can replace the \iffoo construct with simply

 \dostuff

and it will either do nothing or the real definition depending on whether \foofalse or \footrue was most recently executed. Since this saves expanding \iffoo and skipping over the conditional text it is more efficient in principle but whether the difference is measurable on modern machines I haven't checked. It is unlikely that any of these make any real difference unless you do (literally) millions of tests.

[Tex/LaTex] Best practice for index construction — recommendations and references

Posting this as an answer because it is too long for a comment, but I do not aim at exhaustivity (or objectivity, as a matter of fact).

My first suggestion would be, whatever you do regarding the choice of terms to index, to use and abuse the | syntax in your indexing commands (either manually, or by creating your own command that does it):

It works for page ranges, by successively indexing:

\index{something|(} ... \index{something|)}

It also works for whatever formatting commands you may want to add to the page number. Essentially, you can put any control sequence name after |, provided that its last argument (if any) is the implicit page number.

For instance, when something is located in a footnote, I defined:

\newcommand{\note}[1]{#1~(\emph{n.})}

and I can then use: \index{something|note} – no backslash – which outputs:

something, 36 (n.)

This could be used to put the page number in boldface, or something of that kind. Identifying the principal reference(s) sounds like a good idea to me, though it is a matter of personal taste (some people do it, some don't).

Now, regarding your question proper, the general idea is that you should index terms where it makes the most sense and/or where the reader is most likely to look for them.

To me, this would mean that if you have an expression with a noun and an adjective, like "British imperialism", you would index:

imperialism, British, 39

and eventually (adjectives shouldn't normally be index headings):

British imperialism, see imperialism

Regarding abbreviations, the same logic could apply. Since the abbreviation stands for the full expression, it would seem logical redirect the reader there, a bit like in a glossary. So, unlike what you proposed in your question, I would be kind to the reader (if he is not strictly speaking from your field, chances are he does not remember all abbreviations), and suggest:

EIC, see East India Company (British)

East India Company (British), 45

But there could be many variants; for instance, an equally valid construct could be:

East India Company (EIC), 45

Then, there are the complex cases where you have two nouns (or words) of approximatively equal semantic weight, and it is not clear which one should be indexed. Here, it depends on the context, I suppose.

If you think that the reader could reasonably look up either term, then index both with a "see" construct.
If both terms are already indexed in their own right, for other reasons (with sub-entries perhaps), then it is almost always worthwhile to redirect the reader with a "see" construct.

Returning to my first example, while I would not necessarily (just eventually) index "British imperialism" on its own just for a "see" construct, if I already had two significant entries for "britain" and "imperialism", I would definitely write:

Britain, 2, 18-29, 23: economy, 5, 33–39; imperialism (see imperialism)

imperialism: British, 37; Dutch, 74; French, 82

I find it good practice, as far as possible, to create matching index headings; what I really mean is, consistency. If you have two things that have a similar logical structure, index them in the same way. Say, if you are indexing people's names to refer the reader to biographical information, try to construct the sub-entries in the same fashion for everyone. I am not saying they should be strictly identical, but that when similarities (in sub-entries) do occur, you should make sure they appear as such in your index.

Say, don't index:

Smith, John: Years in London, 46

and a couple of entries later:

Turner, Jack: Lived in Manchester, 32

That's inconsistent and awkward.

Here is the Chicago Manual of Style's stand on "see" references:

See references direct a reader from, for example, an informal term to a technical one, a pseudonym to a real name, an inverted term to a noninverted one. They are also used for variant spellings, synonyms, aliases, abbreviations, and so on.

The Oxford Guide to Style is substantially similar on that matter. Neither give very precise information regarding abbreviations and other complex issues, but they have great chapters on indexing proper names and punctuating index entries.

Finally, regarding indexing processes, while I agree with most of the comments so far – that most of the work takes place when you are almost done with the writing – I think there are some things you can index on the go, as "flags". If a word is so important that it makes a section heading, or that you define it in a precise way, it will be indexed under that heading anyway, so you may as well do it while writing.

This will give you bare bones for your index, which you can then improve when everything else is done. I find it helpful to print the index (with MakeIndex or on paper), then I can decide which entries are superfluous, which are lacking, which could be merged or rearranged and modify my document accordingly.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

[Tex/LaTex] Best practice for getting “If not foo” conditionals

[Tex/LaTex] Best practice for index construction — recommendations and references

Related Question