Update formatting of additional pvlib publications#2011
Conversation
|
LGTM |
| collaborative (PVPMC),” in Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2012. | ||
| * J. S. Stein, "The Photovoltaic Performance Modeling Collaborative (PVPMC)," | ||
| 2012 38th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), | ||
| Austin, TX, USA, 2012, pp. 003048-003052, https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2012.6318225. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it more common to add the raw link in the IEEE format or DOI: 10.1109/PVSC.2012.6318225 ?
I think these dois could make use of the role :doi:``
There was a problem hiding this comment.
DOI is certainly to be preferred.
I've switched to the doi role, though I don't exactly know the benefit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry for not being clear enough regarding the "raw link".
You can either put:
The first one is with the DOI role and the second one is the one I was referring to with "raw link".
Edit: for clarification, those are the ways they get rendered on the page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The HTTP link for DOIs is fairly compact, so I don't have a strong preference for either one. Let's just go with the DOI role for this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMHO it’s not an either/or situation. As the title of this PR suggests there is or should be a standard way to format & render references, which uses the doi role that was explicitly created for this purpose. If it is not functional then it should probably be removed from the Sphinx config file. Maybe this needs to be documented somewhere?
5 participants
Not all of the "additional pvlib python publications" include a doi reference. This PR adds this and also standardizes the format of the references.