The unavailability of the bibliography in non-hard science publications is absurd. The bibliography as in the "I consulted with this text, but didn't cite it" I find is invaluable to theoretical papers.
How can I include an essay for example that fundamentally shaped the way I thought about my research, but didn't give me a golden nugget to reference? I have to shoehorn a line out of it, or make some awkward and intangible reference to how it influenced my work.
The emphasis on tangible links, in my opinion, works against theoretical papers - such as on the philosophy of design. By emphasizing specific points, the writing is afforded a more specific, more positivist or scientific way, thereby constraining the thinking that occurs during writing. While it's not impossible to overcome this, and to make sure great works are mentioned, it is not the most natural or appropriate means at times.
It would be great if bibliographies were supported, alongside reference lists. On that note, perhaps even a creative works section too (as in the published artifact as opposed to the scholarly writing about the artifact).