One of the key problems with the bibliography, as it stands is that when
optional field information is missing for an entry in the database, and the
table entry format is set to display the information preceeded by a comma, then
two commas appear, instead of just omitting the field information.

So, we would see:

SMITH99: Smith, J. (1999) 'What to do when boredom strikes' in Journal of Boring
Information, 39 (5), , pp 13-57.

instead of 

SMITH99: Smith, J. (1999) 'What to do when boredom strikes' in Journal of Boring
Information, 39 (5), pp 13-57.

(Note the double comma where the publisher information would appear before the
page number and after the volume/series information.)

Of course, this means that each field should be subject to some string
formatting that allows the field value to be inserted in some text, and there
should be a different option for a NULL value for each field (default of an
empty string). This allows for missing information to be noted, where
applicable, and not printed otherwise.

While one is at it, it would be really good to define a reference style for a
document, where one could create standard reference styles (e.g. Oxford,
American Psychological Association, Harvard, etc) and choose the format for the
document (this might entail placing the reference in a footnote, rather than in
endnotes, as per the Oxford style).

Another point, probably made elsewhere, is that there should be a provision to
be able to reference the page in the text, so [SMITH99] could also appear with a
page reference as [SMITH99: 13-27] or [SMITH99, pp. 13-27] or [SMITH99, p13], or
whatever really. 

Sadly, until there is improved flexibility and ease of use, the bibliographic
system will not be of much use (for me at least). Good idea though.