biber 0.9 -- sorting=none in BibLaTeX package options

[Christoph Spiegel]

Hi all,

I'm trying to turn a custom sorted .bib database file into a PDF
document.

This is my minimal .tex example:

%---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\documentclass{scrartcl}

\usepackage{scrpage2}
\pagestyle{scrheadings}

\RequirePackage[ngerman=ngerman-x-latest]{hyphsubst}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[ngerman]{babel}
\usepackage[autostyle=true]{csquotes}

\usepackage[
bibencoding=inputenc,
citestyle=numeric,
sorting=none,
backend=biber
]{biblatex}

\addbibresource[location=remote]{http://server/index.php?action=get}

\nocite{*}

\begin{document}
\printbibliography
\end{document}
%---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the sorting=none I intend to just use the order of the .bib file
(it comes from an SQL script with a special order). With
backend=biber, this does not work out. The order of the records in the
resulting PDF has an arbitrary order (so it seems to me at least).

When I'm using backend=bibtex8, everything is fine -- despite the fact
that bibtex8 is unable to fetch a remote database (a feature that I
would like to use).

I have no clue what could be the problem here and why the result
differs depending on using either biber or biblatex8.

Could anybody help with that issue?

Christoph

[Philipp Lehman]

Christoph Spiegel wrote:
> I have no clue what could be the problem here and why the result
> differs depending on using either biber or biblatex8.

sorting=none means citation order. With \nocite{*}, no particular
order is guaranteed. What you're trying to do happens to work with
BibTeX, but it's not really an advertised feature.

You can force a certain order with \nocite commands in the desired
order or by setting special fields such as sortkey.

--
Sender address blackholed, reply to: lehman gmx net

[Philip Kime]

On Jul 28, 5:17 pm, Christoph Spiegel <i...@chsp.net> wrote:

> I have no clue what could be the problem here and why the result
> differs depending on using either biber or biblatex8.
>
> Could anybody help with that issue?

Yes, this looks like a bug in biber. Please open a bug on the biber
Sourceforge bug tracker:

https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=228270&atid=1073792

and I will build you a new binary to test when I've fixed it. I've
just released version 0.9.4 and so it will be based on this so you'll
also have to upgrade to biblatex 1.6 ...

[Philip Kime]

On Jul 28, 5:17 pm, Christoph Spiegel <i...@chsp.net> wrote:

> I have no clue what could be the problem here and why the result
> differs depending on using either biber or biblatex8.

Please try the biber 0.9.5 development beta which you can get from
SourceForge here:

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

I think this version should fix your issue. Just copy it over your
existing biber executable. You will need to be using biblatex 1.6.

PK

[Christoph Spiegel]

On 1 Aug., 14:32, Philip Kime <philk...@kime.org.uk> wrote:
> I think this version should fix your issue. Just copy it over your
> existing biber executable. You will need to be using biblatex 1.6.

Thanks, Philip, that does the trick for me.

Christoph

[Philip Kime]

On Jul 29, 4:35 pm, Philipp Lehman <devnull.1.leh...@spamgourmet.com>
wrote:

> Christoph Spiegel wrote:
> > I have no clue what could be the problem here and why the result
> > differs depending on using either biber or biblatex8.
>
> sorting=none means citation order. With \nocite{*}, no particular
> order is guaranteed. What you're trying to do happens to work with
> BibTeX, but it's not really an advertised feature.
>
> You can force a certain order with \nocite commands in the desired
> order or by setting special fields such as sortkey.

This is correct - in fact biber was returning things in hash random
order in this case. I've made it consistent though now with 0.9.5+ so
that "cite order" means "bib order" when sorting=none and a user does
\nocite{*}.