# Changes to cs:info

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/changes-to-cs-info/745>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [August 26, 2009, 9:52am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/changes-to-cs-info/745 "2009-08-26T09:52:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle1)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 9:52am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/changes-to-cs-info/745/1 "2009-08-26T09:52:47Z")

</div>

There are some changes to the metadata part of the schema I’d like to  
propose. They’re mostly things that have been lifted from the Atom Format (  
[http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287)):

- cs:source ([http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-4.2.11](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-4.2.11)): This  
currently isn’t used by any style. I’m not sure if `cs:source` is better  
suited to indicate the URI of independent styles (currently `cs:link` with  
just a “href” attribute) and the URI of the parent style for dependent  
styles (currently `cs:link` with a “href” and rel=“source” attribute). But  
there seems to be overlap, so one of the two should probably be scrapped.
- cs:link: All the independent styles in the Zotero style repository now use  
`cs:link` with just a “href” attribute to indicate the URI of the style. I  
would find it clearer if in this case the rel=“source” attribute/value would  
be used/required.
- cs:link: `cs:link` has quite a few attributes which seem a bit useless to  
me (“type”, “hreflang”, “title” and “length”). They’re not used in any  
styles, and I think it’s worthwhile to remove them to keep the schema free  
of cruft. The “homepage” value of the “rel” attribute can probably go as  
well (you can always use another `cs:link` with rel=“documentation”). I also  
think the schema-comment about rel-expansion can be removed (or is it likely  
that CSL styles will be transformed to Atom feeds in the future?).
- cs:category: currently the “term” attribute of `cs:category` is used to  
indicate both the citation-format and the field(s) in which the style is  
used. My suggestion would be to remove the “term” attribute and instead use  
the “field” and “citation-format” attributes.

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/changes-to-cs-info/745/2 "2009-08-27T17:45:23Z")

</div>

> There are some changes to the metadata part of the schema I’d like to  
> propose. They’re mostly things that have been lifted from the Atom Format  
> ([RFC 4287 - The Atom Syndication Format](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287)):
> 
> - cs:source ([RFC 4287 - The Atom Syndication Format](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-4.2.11)): This  
> currently isn’t used by any style. I’m not sure if `cs:source` is better  
> suited to indicate the URI of independent styles (currently `cs:link` with  
> just a “href” attribute) and the URI of the parent style for dependent  
> styles (currently `cs:link` with a “href” and rel=“source” attribute). But  
> there seems to be overlap, so one of the two should probably be scrapped.
> - cs:link: All the independent styles in the Zotero style repository now use  
> `cs:link` with just a “href” attribute to indicate the URI of the style. I  
> would find it clearer if in this case the rel=“source” attribute/value would  
> be used/required.

Well, I believe our current practice is consistent with the Atom spec.  
If we want to diverge from that spec (?), we probably ought to do so  
obviously.

> - cs:link: `cs:link` has quite a few attributes which seem a bit useless to  
> me (“type”, “hreflang”, “title” and “length”). They’re not used in any  
> styles, and I think it’s worthwhile to remove them to keep the schema free  
> of cruft. The “homepage” value of the “rel” attribute can probably go as  
> well (you can always use another `cs:link` with rel=“documentation”). I also  
> think the schema-comment about rel-expansion can be removed (or is it likely  
> that CSL styles will be transformed to Atom feeds in the future?).

I agree with the above in general. As for the last question, yes, it’s  
likely (ish).

> - cs:category: currently the “term” attribute of `cs:category` is used to  
> indicate both the citation-format and the field(s) in which the style is  
> used. My suggestion would be to remove the “term” attribute and instead use  
> the “field” and “citation-format” attributes.

OK.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 6:15am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/changes-to-cs-info/745/3 "2009-08-28T06:15:58Z")

</div>

I’d say we already deviate from Atom (in a not so obvious way). According to  
the Atom format ([http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-4.2.7](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-4.2.7)):  
“If the ‘rel’ attribute is not present, the link element MUST be interpreted  
as if the link relation type is  
’alternate’.”, which "signifies that the IRI in the value of the href  
attribute identifies an alternate version of the resource described by the  
containing element."  
But CSL doesn’t offer the “alternate” value (which also doesn’t seem  
appropriate here), nor does it explain what the default value of “rel” is.

If we’d want to adhere to Atom as much as possible, I’d suggest:  
defaulting rel to “self” (and introducing “self” as a possible value), which  
according to Atom:  
"signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies a  
resource equivalent to the containing element."  
and renaming “source” to “related”, which, again according to Atom:  
“signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies a  
resource related to the resource described by the containing element.”

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Stillman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dan\_Stillman](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Dan_Stillman)\
**Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 6:42am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/changes-to-cs-info/745/4 "2009-08-28T06:42:11Z")

</div>

I don’t think we need to use Atom unless it increases clarity, and  
rel=“related” doesn’t really do that. rel=“self” does, so I think  
switching to that makes sense.

I might have been the one to name rel=“source”, but we might be able to  
do better if people think it’s not clear. It does sound a bit like  
rel=“documentation”.

I’m not sure either if cs:source is better than rel=“source”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 8:19am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/changes-to-cs-info/745/5 "2009-08-28T08:19:52Z")

</div>

Well, my preference would be to drop cs:source. Maybe we can use rel="self"  
and rel=“independent-parent”?.

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [August 30, 2009, 6:40am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/changes-to-cs-info/745/6 "2009-08-30T06:40:22Z")

</div>

Uploaded the patch with my proposed changes:

[http://groups.google.com/group/zotero-dev/web/cs-info.patch](http://groups.google.com/group/zotero-dev/web/cs-info.patch)

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 1:06am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/changes-to-cs-info/745/7 "2009-09-02T01:06:42Z")

</div>

I’ll try to get to this over the next couple of days.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [September 6, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/changes-to-cs-info/745/8 "2009-09-06T22:11:31Z")

</div>

I’ve committed the patch, with some other minor changes.

Bruce