I'm quite happy using the Oscola style. However, I do get a strange result using \footcite
: in addition to the dot added by \footcite
there is another dot after ibid («ibid..» or, eg, «ibid., 3.») which I cannot explain. My preamble is as follows
\documentclass[a4paper,english]{book}
\usepackage[style=oscola]{biblatex}
\usepackage{babel,newcent,textcomp}
\usepackage[style=british]{csquotes}
\addbibresource{disstryout.bib}
\defbibenvironment{bibliography}
% arara: pdflatex: {options: "-file-line-error-style"}
% arara: biber
\newcommand{\latin}[1]{{\it #1}}
Thanks very much for your support! (I'm new to Tex but eager to learn.)
J
Best Answer
The root of all evil, so to speak, lies in
oscola.bbx
, more specifically the redefinition ofpostnote
(l. 1670)You can add the following to your preamble
if you notice any adverse effect or insist on
\midsentence
, you can exchange the marked empty pair of curly braces{}
for{\midsentence\nopunct}
.The MWE
then yields
Edit
The situation is more complicated than I thought. Punctuation is one of the features that is language dependent, so the output here looks different in different language. (You might notice that the MWE above used
ngerman
, which is probably not what you want.)So an
american
document (and anenglish
one for that matter) will without modifications yield the followingAs you can see, there is an awful lot of double punctuation. You will find that footnote 8, however, does not suffer from double punctuation, this seems to be down to the way
oscola
handles postnotes in the first cite. If footnote 7 had contained a postnote, then footnote 8 would have gotten the superfluous comma (try it!).A
british
document, meanwhile, looks like thisNote that there is no double punctuation, but the "ibid" is not (always) followed by a dot.
In an
american
(orenglish
) document the following modifications seem to acheive what you want.The MWE
yields