{"id":901,"date":"2015-06-07T10:58:57","date_gmt":"2015-06-07T10:58:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cvr.cc\/?p=901"},"modified":"2026-08-02T03:03:10","modified_gmt":"2026-08-02T03:03:10","slug":"biblatex-3-0","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvr.cc\/?p=901","title":{"rendered":"Biblatex 3.0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Biblatex<\/code> package has undergone numerous changes because of its revision to version 3.0. The back-end namely biber<\/code> (the modern equivalent of BibTe<\/span>X program) which is needed to exploit all the features of biblatex<\/code> has also been upgraded to a newer version with changes in the data structure of the resultant bibliographic listing file. Both these revisions have broken the functionality of current version of biblatex.4ht<\/code> of Te<\/span>X4ht bundle, causing panic among biblatex<\/code> users, particularly, in the humanities world. This page in GitHub issue tracker<\/a> of biblatex<\/code> has a long exchange about the current issues. The noteworthy postings in this page are quoted below:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I use the current release version 2.9a with Biber 1.9. Of course I cannot be sure, but I wouldn’t have thought that the changes since 2.9a to the dev branch will have caused such a loss in functionality. When you say the .bbl file which contains the relevant information was loaded, did you make sure that it at that point contained all the relevant information – I’m not sure about mk4ht, maybe it deletes temporary files before proceeding; as I said above, with htlatex it works fine, did you try that? (moewew<\/code>: March 28, 2015)<\/p>\n

I strongly suspect that if tex4ht adapted to the biblatex’s new .bbl format a while ago where labelname was explicitly resolved by biber, then the DEV version change where I removed this and now do the resolving in biblatex is to blame. Maybe you can check if tex4ht expects to find an explicit labelname field in the .bbl? (plk<\/code>: March 29, 2015)<\/p>\n

The irritating format version is probably caused by the fact that the .bbl file changed in the meantime, since I’ve tried with biblatex 2.9a. Well, I guess we have located the problem. I’m not quite sure though what would be the best way to track down the specific change responsible for it.<\/p>\n

The MWE of this bug report was only the beginning for me, so to speak. I have a quite long document which produces all kind of other biblatex errors when I try compile it with tex4ht. But since it relies on a version of biblatex-fiwi which is adapted to biblatex 3.0, hunting bugs becomes a bit difficult ATM. (simifilm<\/code>: March 30, 2015)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

After evaluating the current version of biblatex<\/code> package and biber<\/code> generated output, biblatex.4ht<\/code> (package used by Te<\/span>X4ht) has been modified to suit the current scenario. All 46 example files provided in the biblatex<\/code> bundle have been tested to check if HTML<\/span> output comparable to PDF<\/span> of the corresponding example files are generated and indeed preliminary tests proved to be correct.<\/p>\n

An archive of all the examples in separate subdirectories with HTML<\/span>, PDF<\/span> outputs, auxiliary files written during various processes, biber<\/code> output, etc., are included in each subdirectory for users to see.\u00a0 A download link is given below.<\/p>\n

The modified version of biblatex.4ht<\/code> is also provided as biblatex-3.0.4ht<\/code> which users may kindly rename to biblatex.4ht<\/code> before usage.<\/p>\n

Download Links<\/h4>\n
    \n
  1. Archive of example documents with output<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. biblatex-3.0.4ht<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Biblatex package has undergone numerous changes because of its revision to version 3.0. The back-end namely biber (the modern equivalent of BibTeX program) which is needed to exploit all the features of biblatex has also been upgraded to a newer version with changes in the data structure of the resultant bibliographic listing file. Both these […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,15,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-biblatex","category-tex","category-tex4ht"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvr.cc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/901","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvr.cc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvr.cc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvr.cc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvr.cc\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=901"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cvr.cc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/901\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":966,"href":"https:\/\/cvr.cc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/901\/revisions\/966"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvr.cc\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvr.cc\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvr.cc\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}