I've looked over the behavior of inproceedings (and incollection). They look good! One minor comment:
It seems that when there is no publisher, the date should appear preceded by a comma:
[XX] Guy E. Blelloch, Virginia Vassilevska, and Ryan Williams: A new combinatorial approach for sparse graph problems. In Proc. 35th Internat. Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’08), pp. 108–120, 2008. [doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70575-8 ̇10]
However, when there IS a publisher (and in general there should be for this kind of citation), the date appears after the publisher, which is preceded with a period:
[XX] Timothy M. Chan: More algorithms for all-pairs shortest paths in weighted graphs. In Proc. 39th STOC, pp. 590–598. ACM Press, 2007. [doi:10.1145/1250790.1250877]
Dear Marco,
I've looked over the behavior of inproceedings (and incollection). They look good! One minor comment:
It seems that when there is no publisher, the date should appear preceded by a comma:
[XX] Guy E. Blelloch, Virginia Vassilevska, and Ryan Williams: A new combinatorial approach for sparse graph problems. In Proc. 35th Internat. Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’08), pp. 108–120, 2008. [doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70575-8 ̇10]
However, when there IS a publisher (and in general there should be for this kind of citation), the date appears after the publisher, which is preceded with a period:
[XX] Timothy M. Chan: More algorithms for all-pairs shortest paths in weighted graphs. In Proc. 39th STOC, pp. 590–598. ACM Press, 2007. [doi:10.1145/1250790.1250877]
All the best, Alex