Titles refactoring

[DavidLuptak]

Titles related macros needed refactoring as well, so here it is:

• macro pub:title handled some checking on maintitle and booktitle, which was causing problems e.g. with knuth:ct works (addressing A Few Minor Suggestions #19 -- at the end of this comment)
  • according the norm and the basic principle of determining the appropriate level of specificity at which the reference is made, the maintitle or booktitle is not worth to print if it is related to @book entry type. Hence title is enough.
  • pub:title has been renamed to host:titles and rewritten to be applied to use for printing host item (book, collection, etc.) of the reference.
• medium-type macro has been extracted as a separate macro into the drivers
• titles of @periodical entry types are handled as follows:
  • Title. [Issuetitle | Journaltitle].
• two arguments instead of one are passed into titles macro, for avoiding duplication of the code

[DavidLuptak]

Another issue appeared with titleaddon and its derivatives. I have corrected it in the way that titleaddons fields to be the best suitable place for other titles, translation of titles, etc. (see section 6.1.3, 6.2 of the norm) -- always printed as is, without any formatting, and enclosed in square brackets.

[moewew]

I'm not sure if it is really safe to drop the maintitle for all @books. Consider coleridge, knuth:ct:a et al. and nietzsche:ksa1 in biblatex-examples.bib.

[DavidLuptak]

Of course, I took this references into account as well, but according to the norm, there is no mention of printing such titles in "titles section" of the references. However, now I've realized that maintitle or booktitle could be find as series titles, or am I wrong? There is a section referring to the series (before standard identifiers) so maintitles or booktitles should be used right there, imho.

[moewew]

Mhhh, I think especially nietzsche:ksa1 suffers from dropping the maintitle. Are there no situations in the norm where a part of a multi-volume work is cited (such as Kant's Akademie Textausgabe or a multi-volume reference work such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Brockhaus)?

The decision whether to use maintitle or series is not always clear cut. But I tend to think that a series is broader and might include works by different authors, while maintitle/volume things are a bit more restricted. series are probably more long-running and include many numbers, while maintitles can include only few volumes.

[DavidLuptak]

No, I can't see such situation in the norm where a part of a multi-volume work is cited. The only one meaningful place for this really seems to be the series.

For sure there are some differences between those fields, but no matter which field will be used, I would say it should be included in the "series section".

[moewew]

Mhhh, OK. But then I would at least expect a way to get "backwards compatibility" for maintitle and volume.

[DavidLuptak]

Finally, I have had a look into multiple interpretations of the norm and found that maintitle could be used as a primary title, following by volume and title. So this is reflected in the respective commit.