Testers needed for bibaltex 2.0/biber 1.0

[pk]

Greetings all,
In the current absence of Philipp Lehman, we are intending to release version 2.0 of biblatex and version 1.0 of biber in the not too distant future. We hope he comes back and takes control again but we would like to release the new version which has some major new features (and may bug fixes and minor new features):

* biber only. bibtex no longer supported as a backend (still supported on the 1.x branch)
* Customisable labels for styles which use labels. Users can define a template for all bibliography labels.
* Different sorting for each bibliography/shorthand list now
* Generic "related entries" functionality to cope with the many different entry relationships like "translated from", "reprint of" etc.
* Dynamic datasource modification via biblatex interface (interface to biber's "sourcemap" feature)
* More fine-grained control over sorting specifications and exclusions
* Citation key aliases - cite entries via several keys

All new features are fully documented in the biblatex PDF manual.

Given that we can't really hope to equal Philipp Lehman in TeX prowess, we would like to have people test these releases and so biblatex 2.0beta and biber 1.0beta are now available for testing. You need to use both of these together - they will not work with any other versions of biblatex/biber.

biblatex 2.0 beta from here:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/biblatex/files/development/biblatexb.tgz

biber 1.0 beta from here:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/biblatex-biber/files/biblatex-biber/development/binaries

[Herbert Schulz]

In article
<7674981.744.1335469399085.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynid15>,
pk <phil...@kime.org.uk> wrote:

> ...

> * biber only. bibtex no longer supported as a backend (still supported on the
> 1.x branch)

>...

Howdy,

Still think this is a mistake. There still are lots of folks still using
Mac OS X 10.5 on PPC systems and biber won't run on them; it's available
for OS X 10.5 Intel only. Unless biber 1.0 will have a real universal
build for OS X 10.5?

Good Luck,
Herb Schulz

[Joseph Wright]

Which Perl version does 10.5 have? You don't have to have pre-built
binaries to use Biber.
--
Joseph Wright

[Joseph Wright]

On 26/04/2012 22:02, Herbert Schulz wrote:

To add on the reason for looking to drop BibTeX support. Adding features
to biblatex can only go on if the back-end is able to work with them.
Many of the newer features only work with Biber, but more importantly
keeping the BibTeX support code working at the same time as adding
features complex. Broadly, it will become extremely difficult to add any
further features to biblatex without dropping BibTeX support.

(That's before you even consider the wider idea the PL had slated for
v3: a new data model.)
--
Joseph Wright

[Herbert Schulz]

In article <jncdce$6t7$1...@dont-email.me>,

Howdy,

perl --version

gives

This is perl, v5.8.8 built for darwin-thread-multi-2level

so, will that be ok? Note there is an Intel version for OS X 10.5 and
I'd assume that perl is the same. Doesn't the ``binary'' load some extra
libraries (in /tmp I'd guess) so wouldn't folks have to install those to
use the script directly? Have to admit I don't understand how all this
works.

Good Luck,
Herb Schulz

[Simon Spiegel]

There seems to be a problem with the option natbib=true respectively
with blx-natbib.def. It always gives me the following error:

(/Users/simi/Library/texmf/tex/latex/biblatex/blx-natbib.def
/Users/simi/Library/texmf/tex/latex/biblatex/blx-natbib.def:5: Undefined contro
l sequence.
<write> File: blx-natbib.def \abx@rcsid
$Id:$ biblatex natbib compatibility
l.5 biblatex natbib compatibility]

?
File: blx-natbib.def $Id:$ biblatex natbib compatibility
/Users/simi/Library/texmf/tex/latex/biblatex/blx-natbib.def:5: Undefined contro
l sequence.
<argument> \abx@rcsid
$Id:$ biblatex natbib compatibility
l.5 biblatex natbib compatibility]

?
)

Apart from that my test documents compile fine.

Simon

[pk]

Ah, ok. Can you log an issue ongithub against the "biberonly" branch and I'll fix this.

PK

[pk]

The 1.x branch will still support bibtex. It's just that all of the major new features in 2.0 are biber only anyway.

[pk]

No, biber requires very recent perl (5.14) because it supports complete Unicode 6.0. But biber <1.0 has a universal versionwhich will work with the 1.x biblatex branch.

[Ulrike Fischer]

Am Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:10:15 +0100 schrieb Joseph Wright:

>>> * biber only. bibtex no longer supported as a backend (still supported on the
>>> 1.x branch)

> To add on the reason for looking to drop BibTeX support. Adding features
> to biblatex can only go on if the back-end is able to work with them.
> Many of the newer features only work with Biber, but more importantly
> keeping the BibTeX support code working at the same time as adding
> features complex. Broadly, it will become extremely difficult to add any
> further features to biblatex without dropping BibTeX support.

While I do understand the need to use biber, I really hope that the
new biblatex version doesn't come simply through the standard update
manager of texlive or miktex. There are certainly a lot people
around which use biblatex + bibtex e.g. with tools like texify for
their thesis. It is hopeless to expect people to read first
documentation or warnings before clicking the update-button.
If all this people get suddenly errors it will be a support
nightmare.

--
Ulrike Fischer

[pk]

Right, we won't do this. Probably TL contrib.

[Robin Fairbairns]

pk <phil...@kime.org.uk> writes:

> The 1.x branch will still support bibtex. It's just that all of the
> major new features in 2.0 are biber only anyway.

i understand that, but we (ctan, tl, miktex) don't have a means of
supporting two versions with the same "name".

i also understand that your hands are tied following the disappearance
of philipp, so i fear we're at an impasse.

it's clear that many people have made significant investment in the use
of biblatex, and if that's all to be dropped by the wayside (for those
people who can't immediately switch to using biber) there will be a tide
of bitterness that could easily overwhelm the good will that you and
philipp have built up with your excellent work so far.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
sorry about all this posting. i'll go back to sleep in a bit.

[Joseph Wright]

One long-term idea I'd thought about is setting up biblatex.sty as a
wrapper, and loading either 'biblatex-v1.sty' or 'biblatex-v2.sty'
depending on the package options (so "backend=bibtex" will continue to
work).

(Two branches are hard to work with TeX, so getting this right might be
hard.)
--
Joseph Wright

[Joseph Wright]

On 27/04/2012 09:36, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> pk <phil...@kime.org.uk> writes:
>
>> The 1.x branch will still support bibtex. It's just that all of the
>> major new features in 2.0 are biber only anyway.
>
> i understand that, but we (ctan, tl, miktex) don't have a means of
> supporting two versions with the same "name".
>
> i also understand that your hands are tied following the disappearance
> of philipp, so i fear we're at an impasse.
>
> it's clear that many people have made significant investment in the use
> of biblatex, and if that's all to be dropped by the wayside (for those
> people who can't immediately switch to using biber) there will be a tide
> of bitterness that could easily overwhelm the good will that you and
> philipp have built up with your excellent work so far.

Yes, that is all quite true. At the moment, the idea is to release the
Biber-only version to TLcontrib, so it's explicitly for people who know
what they are letting themselves in for. As I've outlined in another
answer, I can see one way of dealing with this being to set up a 'shell'
biblatex.sty. This would then be *very* short, as it would only need to
deal with the "backend" option, a process that can be set up without
'real' keyval processing with a bit of effort. Would that make sense?
--
Joseph Wright

[pk]

This is all up for discussion. We won't do anything drastic.

[Ulrike Fischer]

Am Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:51:29 +0100 schrieb Joseph Wright:

>>>>> * biber only. bibtex no longer supported as a backend (still supported on the
>>>>> 1.x branch)

>> While I do understand the need to use biber, I really hope that the
>> new biblatex version doesn't come simply through the standard update
>> manager of texlive or miktex. There are certainly a lot people
>> around which use biblatex + bibtex e.g. with tools like texify for
>> their thesis. It is hopeless to expect people to read first
>> documentation or warnings before clicking the update-button.
>> If all this people get suddenly errors it will be a support
>> nightmare.
>
> One long-term idea I'd thought about is setting up biblatex.sty as a
> wrapper, and loading either 'biblatex-v1.sty' or 'biblatex-v2.sty'
> depending on the package options (so "backend=bibtex" will continue to
> work).

I haven't the time to look in the new version. If the difference is
only in the sty then it would be enough to call it - say -
xbiblatex.sty or biberbiblatex and to upload it at CTAN and so let
people try out. A wrapper could then be added later.

But if the changes affect (or will affect in the future) all or some
of the cbx, bbx or lbx-files things could get messy.


--
Ulrike Fischer

[pk]

Changes are really only in .sty and suporting .def. I am thinking that it might be better to call it biblatex2.

PK

[Simon Spiegel]

On 2012-04-27 08:36:55 +0000, Robin Fairbairns said:

> pk <phil...@kime.org.uk> writes:
>
>> The 1.x branch will still support bibtex. It's just that all of the
>> major new features in 2.0 are biber only anyway.
>
> i understand that, but we (ctan, tl, miktex) don't have a means of
> supporting two versions with the same "name".
>
> i also understand that your hands are tied following the disappearance
> of philipp, so i fear we're at an impasse.
>
> it's clear that many people have made significant investment in the use
> of biblatex, and if that's all to be dropped by the wayside (for those
> people who can't immediately switch to using biber) there will be a tide
> of bitterness that could easily overwhelm the good will that you and
> philipp have built up with your excellent work so far.

At the risk of turning this into a completely different discussions: I
think that this conservative attitude really hasn't helped LaTeX in the
long run. BibTeX's (both the program and the format) shortcomings have
been known for ages, and now that we finally have a viable alternative
we shouldn't again make the same mistake and invest much energy just
for the people who are two generations behind with their OS updates.

Simon

[Ulrike Fischer]

Am Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:35:09 +0200 schrieb Simon Spiegel:

>> it's clear that many people have made significant investment in the use
>> of biblatex, and if that's all to be dropped by the wayside (for those
>> people who can't immediately switch to using biber) there will be a tide
>> of bitterness that could easily overwhelm the good will that you and
>> philipp have built up with your excellent work so far.
>
> At the risk of turning this into a completely different discussions: I
> think that this conservative attitude really hasn't helped LaTeX in the
> long run. BibTeX's (both the program and the format) shortcomings have
> been known for ages, and now that we finally have a viable alternative
> we shouldn't again make the same mistake and invest much energy just
> for the people who are two generations behind with their OS updates.

The problem are not people "two generations behind with their OS".
The problem are e.g. users of miktex 2.9 on windows 7 currently
writing their thesis with biblatex + backend bibtex + texify. Do you
want to spent hours to help them to switch to biber and to setup
(pdf)texify correctly when they have a deadline and panic?



--
Ulrike Fischer

[Robin Fairbairns]

i think you over-simplify.

bibtex's shortcomings have indeed been well-known for a long time, but
it has also been well-known for a pretty long time that one could use
biblatex with bibtex sources, and a fair number of people have therefore
delayed their biblio format conversion. (leaving things as they were
offers the chance of backing off if/when a deadline falls into the
danger zone.)

aiui, to force a switch now would leave such people's biblatex use
stranded, driving them back to bibtex. it may well be that these users
are running a superannuated os, but most of them will be using something
that is fundamentally ok for biblatex use. (problems will mostly be in
the perl distribution, it seems.)

the people who would be affected by burning the bridges are exactly
those who are working on a steady migration to using all of biblatex's
features. the lazy ones (such as me[*]) aren't bothered because bibtex
is still there and will deal with immediate problems.

so i counsel caution with the change.

[*] note, i've not written a citation in anger for 15 years; i just
don't do that sort of thing any more (there are no citations in the faq,
which for good or ill is the only significant latex i've written since i
gave up research).

[Simon Spiegel]

Unforunately, this kind of argument will always be true if you plan any
kind of bigger change. And I don't know about MikTeX, but at least with
TL it's fairly easy to revet a package to an older version.

Simon

[Simon Spiegel]

On 2012-04-27 16:41:13 +0000, Robin Fairbairns said:

> Simon Spiegel <si...@remove.simifilm.ch> writes:
>
>> On 2012-04-27 08:36:55 +0000, Robin Fairbairns said:
>>
>>> pk <phil...@kime.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> The 1.x branch will still support bibtex. It's just that all of the
>>>> major new features in 2.0 are biber only anyway.
>>>
>>> i understand that, but we (ctan, tl, miktex) don't have a means of
>>> supporting two versions with the same "name".
>>>
>>> i also understand that your hands are tied following the disappearance
>>> of philipp, so i fear we're at an impasse.
>>>
>>> it's clear that many people have made significant investment in the use
>>> of biblatex, and if that's all to be dropped by the wayside (for those
>>> people who can't immediately switch to using biber) there will be a tide
>>> of bitterness that could easily overwhelm the good will that you and
>>> philipp have built up with your excellent work so far.
>>
>> At the risk of turning this into a completely different discussions: I
>> think that this conservative attitude really hasn't helped LaTeX in
>> the long run. BibTeX's (both the program and the format) shortcomings
>> have been known for ages, and now that we finally have a viable
>> alternative we shouldn't again make the same mistake and invest much
>> energy just for the people who are two generations behind with their
>> OS updates.
>
> i think you over-simplify.

Definitely. And just to make sure: I don't think we have to burn any
bridges. I just think spending too much energy worrying about backwards
compatibility isn't sensible. It might be useful in short term, but
it's counterproductive in the long run. And, after all, no one really
knows how big that "fair number of people who have delayed their biblio
format conversion" really is. Is it really that big? Your guess is
probably as good as mine here.

Simon

[John Collins]

Ulrike Fischer wrote:
>
>> At the risk of turning this into a completely different discussions: I
>> think that this conservative attitude really hasn't helped LaTeX in the
>> long run. BibTeX's (both the program and the format) shortcomings have
>> been known for ages, and now that we finally have a viable alternative
>> we shouldn't again make the same mistake and invest much energy just
>> for the people who are two generations behind with their OS updates.
>
> The problem are not people "two generations behind with their OS".
> The problem are e.g. users of miktex 2.9 on windows 7 currently
> writing their thesis with biblatex + backend bibtex + texify. Do you
> want to spent hours to help them to switch to biber and to setup
> (pdf)texify correctly when they have a deadline and panic?

Surely the proper solution (as Philip Kime already proposed) is for the new
versions to be distinguished by name (e.g., biblatex2, biber2). Then the
issues of backward compatibility evaporate. The new versions can do
whatever is needed to have better functionality, and the unchanged old
versions allow users to preserve their documents and workflow. Updating
documents to use the modern biblatex2 is then at the user's convenience.

It's not just users in the middle of projects with tight deadlines who are
bothered. There are hundreds of thousands of documents at arxiv.org. A
seriously incompatible change in some macro package can cause havoc there.
(At present, I don't think there are many that use biblatex, but that
will presumably change.)

John Collins

[Simon Spiegel]

Or to put another way: I think it would be much more sensible to spend
time figuring out how we can make people update to things like biber
and drop legacy technologies.

Simon

[Herbert Schulz]

In article <9vvslc...@mid.individual.net>,

Howdy,

Unfortunately the problem for folks with a possibly large investment in
PPC Macs is that OS X 10.5 is the latest update that will run on those
systems. It isn't a matter of simply updating the OS.

Good Luck,
Herb Schulz

[Paulo Roberto Massa Cereda]

Hi there friends,

I'm still in the BibTeX résistance, but I'd like to help testing the new
beta releases. :)

Best wishes,

Paulo

[Axel Berger]

Ulrike Fischer wrote:
> The problem are not people "two generations behind with their OS".

Although those too have right to exist. I suggest following Markus
Kohm's lead here. When things become seriously incomaptible change the
name, as from scrlettr to scrlttr2, freeze the old version and make it
issue a warning pointing to the new one. That way nobody will be caught
out.

I had that trouble, when beamer suddenly became incompatible with
microtype making pdflatex crash without any sensible error message. I
still thudder at the thought of possibly having seen a typo minutes
before having to give a talk. (That's why you carry several backups on
different media, but still ...)

Axel

[Lee Rudolph]

Axel Berger <Axel....@Gmx.De> writes:

>I had that trouble, when beamer suddenly became incompatible with
>microtype making pdflatex crash without any sensible error message. I
>still thudder at the thought of possibly having seen a typo minutes
>before having to give a talk. (That's why you carry several backups on
>different media, but still ...)

That's why I carry chalk.

Lee Rudolph (not that I can rely on there being a blackboard, any more)

[Simon Spiegel]

According to the stats of Omni Group, the installed base of 10.5 is
under 10% (http://update.omnigroup.com/ – feel free to provide more
comprehensive stats). I wonder how useful it is focus on such a small
fraction. There also is ActivePerl which AFAICS is a free Perl 5.14
which comes as a universal binary.

I think the whole perspective is wrong – the focus should not be on
supporting legacy systems, but rather on motivating to migrate from
something like BibTeX to biber.

Simon

[Joseph Wright]

On 26/04/2012 20:43, pk wrote:
> * biber only. bibtex no longer supported as a backend (still supported on the 1.x branch)

We are examining the possibility of providing an approach in which the
two back ends (BibTeX and Biber) continue to be supported, but in
separate parts which will allow us to freeze the BibTeX part and add new
features only to Biber. This will take a few days to sort out, but I
hope will be available from the development site
(https://github.com/plk/biblatex/) by Monday.

This is a long-term process: we are not about to change the CTAN release
of biblatex without proper consultation and checking. There needs to be
quite a bit of testing of the new features beyond the the BibTeX support
question. Testing of the v2 code in terms of bugs there (working with
Biber) would be very useful.
--
Joseph Wright

[Joseph Wright]

On 27/04/2012 22:40, Simon Spiegel wrote:
> I think the whole perspective is wrong – the focus should not be on
> supporting legacy systems, but rather on motivating to migrate from
> something like BibTeX to biber.

If I am right, the 'wrapper' approach will actually not require
significant effort on our part. That will let us freeze the BibTeX
support without dropping it entirely, which I hope will satisfy both sides.
--
Joseph Wright

[Herbert Schulz]

In article <jnf3v4$ca5$1...@dont-email.me>,

Howdy,

I'm sure that the those folks ``stuck'' with an investment in PPC Macs
running OS X 10.5 by necessity will appreciate that.

Updating an OS, when possible, is relatively cheap (wasn't 10.6 US$29
and is 10.7 from 10.6) but a large investment in hardware shouldn't be
put down as insignificant. Especially since TeX Live still supports OS X
10.5.

Good Luck,
Herb Schulz

[Uwe Siart]

Simon Spiegel <si...@remove.simifilm.ch> writes:

> Or to put another way: I think it would be much more sensible to spend
> time figuring out how we can make people update to things like biber
> and drop legacy technologies.

"Making people update" is only half the story. The main reason why I
can't switch entirely to biblatex/biber is that the bibfiles are not
backward compatible. Once I decide to update one of my (centralized)
bibfiles to biblatex dialect (e.g. month = {5} instead of month = {May})
then I alos have to migrate all the documents that make use of that
bibfile. That's not possible immediately. So I'm quite happy that I can
make a soft transition from bibstyles to biblatex by using biblatex but
still with BibTeX as a backend.

Another obstacle for me is that RefTeX does not yet support biblatex.
But that's a different issue ...

--
Uwe

[Lee Rudolph]

So, whatever happened to amsref, anyway?

Lee Rudolph

[pk]

On Saturday, 28 April 2012 14:23:43 UTC+2, Uwe Siart wrote:
> Once I decide to update one of my (centralized)
> bibfiles to biblatex dialect (e.g. month = {5} instead of month = {May})
> then I alos have to migrate all the documents that make use of that
> bibfile.

Actually, biber does this for you. It converts into bibaltex's number format automatically for months.

[Simon Spiegel]

On 2012-04-28 12:23:43 +0000, Uwe Siart said:

> Simon Spiegel <si...@remove.simifilm.ch> writes:
>
>> Or to put another way: I think it would be much more sensible to spend
>> time figuring out how we can make people update to things like biber
>> and drop legacy technologies.
>
> "Making people update" is only half the story. The main reason why I
> can't switch entirely to biblatex/biber is that the bibfiles are not
> backward compatible. Once I decide to update one of my (centralized)
> bibfiles to biblatex dialect (e.g. month = {5} instead of month = {May})
> then I alos have to migrate all the documents that make use of that
> bibfile. That's not possible immediately. So I'm quite happy that I can
> make a soft transition from bibstyles to biblatex by using biblatex but
> still with BibTeX as a backend.

I don't get what you're saying. This kind of incompatibility that has
absolutely nothing to do with the backend. Biblatex' format does not
depend on whether you use BibTeX or biber.

Simon

[Simon Spiegel]

As I already wrote, there is ActivePerl
(http://www.activestate.com/activeperl ) which is, AFAICS free,
supports 10.5 and has version 5.14. So if you want biber 10.5, you can
have it (and of course, you can always reverse TL updates).

Simon

[Herbert Schulz]

Howdy,

Installed biblatex 2.0 in my personal texmf tree. Installed biber 1.0 in
/usr/local/texlive/2011/bin/x86_64-darwin/. Have no problem with my
simple files. However I do have a problem on the second pdflatex run
(first running pdflatex and then biber) with error

./11-references-by-section.tex:40: Undefined control sequence.
\abx@preamble ->\RequireBiber
[2]
l.40 \begin{document}

?

for the example file 11-references-by-section.tex when set up to use
biber.

Good Luck,
Herb Schulz

[Uwe Siart]

Simon Spiegel <si...@remove.simifilm.ch> writes:

> I don't get what you're saying. This kind of incompatibility that has
> absolutely nothing to do with the backend. Biblatex' format does not
> depend on whether you use BibTeX or biber.

After giving some thought to it ... you're absolutely right. The actual
migration is going from bibstyle to biblatex, not going from BibTeX to
biber.

--
Uwe

[Uwe Siart]

pk <phil...@kime.org.uk> writes:

> Actually, biber does this for you. It converts into bibaltex's number
> format automatically for months.

Great thing! I didn't know about this. You mean with biber I can use my
"old" bibfiles together with biblatex without the need to convert the
month fields (because biber understands "jan", "Jan", and "January" and
translates it into "1")?

--
Uwe

[Axel Berger]

Uwe Siart wrote:
> then I alos have to migrate all the documents that make use of that
> bibfile.

Assuming those are old, frozen documents you could also freeze a copy of
the bibfile to go with them. It was Donald Knuth's ideal to make things
like that unnecessary while the stack of old archived documend piles up,
but it doesn't work like that in practice. At least you yourself have a
chance of remembering what became incompatible over the years, somebody
else finding one of your old docs and having it not compile faces a more
difficult task.

Axel

[Robin Fairbairns]

Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> writes:

> So, whatever happened to amsref, anyway?

i was quite excited by amsrefs, initially. (in an abstract sort of
way -- as i've said elsewhere, i don't do citations.)

it approaches the problem in a different way to biblatex, and i have
wondered what might have become of it had michael not died.

aiui (happy to be corrected) the ams is maintaining it but not
developing.

[Simon Spiegel]

AFAIK the in the build of biblatex 2.0 currently available, the command
\RequireBiber has been decapreated since the original idea – discussed
in this very thread – was to go biber-only. But if only the biber
backend is available, \RequireBiber isn't necessary anymore.

Simon

[Simon Spiegel]

One thing to add here: While biblatex's native format isn't 100%
compatible with traditional BibTeX, biber potentially increases
compatibility with other formats since it makes conversions much
easier. ATM, biber offers (experimental) for RIS, Endnote XML and
Zotero; something completely out of the scope of BibTeX. So while
biblatex gives you compatibility problems, biber reduces them – at
least in theory.

Simon

[Herbert Schulz]

Howdy,

Thanks for thee heads up. I didn't realize that the supplied examples
bib file had changed so I didn't put it into my personal /bibtex/bib
directory to overide the one in texmf-dist. After doing that it all
works. This is with a fully updated TeX Live 2011 (well, with the new
biblatex and biber installed) undeer Mac OS X 10.7.

--
Good Luck,
Herb Schulz

[pk]

On Saturday, 28 April 2012 22:16:26 UTC+2, Uwe Siart wrote:

> Great thing! I didn't know about this. You mean with biber I can use my
> "old" bibfiles together with biblatex without the need to convert the
> month fields (because biber understands "jan", "Jan", and "January" and
> translates it into "1")?

Exactly.

[pk]

On Saturday, 28 April 2012 23:24:46 UTC+2, Simon Spiegel wrote:

> AFAIK the in the build of biblatex 2.0 currently available, the command
> \RequireBiber has been decapreated since the original idea – discussed
> in this very thread – was to go biber-only. But if only the biber
> backend is available, \RequireBiber isn't necessary anymore.

Yes, I took this command out but in fact with the new wrapper idea, it'll be back in there for backwards compatibility with styles which use it already.