# Chapters, volumes and editions

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [November 30, 2007, 2:31pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386 "2007-11-30T14:31:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Julian\_Onions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/958977/32.png) [@Julian\_Onions](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Julian_Onions)\
**Post date:** [December 3, 2007, 11:15pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/21 "2007-12-03T23:15:36Z")

</div>

As far as I see it:

Option 1 - extracting the numeric value from fields is the easiest. I’ve  
already written the code for zotero and it all works, at least for the  
examples I’ve tried. It allows fields which may be numeric to store non  
numeric data, or a combination, and to test and extract the relevant parts  
if required. Its backwards compatible with the old format - the CSL  
additions do not change existing formatters, it just allows more control if  
you need it. There is no need to upgrade databases, or tinker with scrapers  
or anything.

Option 2 - I’m still not clear how this solves the issue. If the value field  
is a number, you pass through the number, but if its not you pass through  
the whole thing. So you don’t know whether to append “ed.” or “vol.” onto  
the end. I don’t think it has moved us on any further. You might code it up  
as  
  
  
  
  
  
  
You will still end up with either a style that is not conformant to, say,  
Chicago with “3 ed.” or else something like “reprint edition ed.”

Option 3 - edition\_number and edition\_version style would solve the problem  
to a degree. I still think it will be as clumsy as the option 1. How would  
you format edition under this scheme? Probably something like  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
So its basically its very similar amount of formatting data as option 1,  
except we don’t have the new formatting for ordinal, and roman numerals. Its  
also now a solution specific to edition, so if we find weird cases of  
volume, issue, chapter or number-of-volumes we have to make some new double  
variables there too. It requires either upgrading databases and scrapers, or  
else writing code to transform a base variable into one of these two at run  
time. Its basically an explicit version of option 2.

I guess I vote for 1, but then I would say that!

Julian.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Simon\_Kornblith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Simon\_Kornblith](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Simon_Kornblith)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2007, 2:12am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/22 "2007-12-04T02:12:51Z")

</div>

Option 4 - extract the numeric value from fields when possible, and  
otherwise, the variable “edition” is the edition as text without any  
kind of ed/edition suffix. (How this gets done is Zotero’s business,  
not CSL’s. It’s extraordinarily easy just to strip these suffixes out  
when the bibliography is generated, but another implementation might  
just specify not to enter a suffix.) falls back on the text  
variable if no number is available.

Under option 1, if the edition is “revised edition” but the style  
wants “revised ed.” it the edition variable’s value is “revised  
edition,” and this is what appears in the bibliography. Not too big of  
a deal, but not quite right. Under option 4, the edition variable’s  
value would be “revised” and you’d get “revised ed.”

With implicit fallback (if no number exists, prints the same thing as   
would), formatting looks like:

This has the disadvantage of introducing incompatibility with current  
styles, but the advantage of being simple and producing better output,  
except maybe when the style wants “edition 2,” although that could be  
solved by allowing the kind of conditional that option 1 requires. In  
this case, maybe would be less misleading as  
far as syntax goes.

I’d definitely go for this option or option 1. Option 1 has fewer  
implied rules, but this results in shorter CSLs and better output.

Simon

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Julian\_Onions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/958977/32.png) [@Julian\_Onions](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Julian_Onions)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2007, 11:52am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/23 "2007-12-04T11:52:10Z")

</div>

> Option 4 - extract the numeric value from fields when possible, and  
> otherwise, the variable “edition” is the edition as text without any  
> kind of ed/edition suffix. (How this gets done is Zotero’s business,  
> not CSL’s. It’s extraordinarily easy just to strip these suffixes out  
> when the bibliography is generated, but another implementation might  
> just specify not to enter a suffix.) falls back on the text  
> variable if no number is available.
> 
> Under option 1, if the edition is “revised edition” but the style  
> wants “revised ed.” it the edition variable’s value is “revised  
> edition,” and this is what appears in the bibliography. Not too big of  
> a deal, but not quite right. Under option 4, the edition variable’s  
> value would be “revised” and you’d get “revised ed.”
> 
> With implicit fallback (if no number exists, prints the same thing as   
> would), formatting looks like:
> 
> This has the disadvantage of introducing incompatibility with current  
> styles, but the advantage of being simple and producing better output,  
> except maybe when the style wants “edition 2,” although that could be  
> solved by allowing the kind of conditional that option 1 requires. In  
> this case, maybe would be less misleading as  
> far as syntax goes.
> 
> I’d definitely go for this option or option 1. Option 1 has fewer  
> implied rules, but this results in shorter CSLs and better output.

Its an interesting idea - if we apply it to other fields like volume it  
would again possibly need things stripping off. I’ve just been looking  
through the Chicago spec. It depends if we want to support all possible  
things it does.  
Examples which work include  
Florence Babb, _Between Field and Cooking Pot: The Political Economy of  
Marketwomen in Peru_, rev. ed. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989),  
199.  
Strunk, William, Jr., and E. B. White. _The Elements of Style_. 4th ed. New  
York: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.  
Anderson, J. L., and D. Richie. 1982. _The Japanese film art and industry_.  
Exp. ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.  
Weber, M., H. M. de Burlet, and O. Abel. 1928. _Die Säugetiere_. 2nd ed. 2  
vols. Jena: Gustav Fischer.

Examples which don’t from

> **[The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition](https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch17/ch17_sec123.html)**
>
> Find it. Write it. Cite it. The Chicago Manual of Style Online is the venerable, time-tested guide to style, usage, and grammar in an accessible online format. ¶ It is the indispensable reference for writers, editors, proofreaders, indexers,...

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. _The Great Gatsby_. New York: Scribner, 1925.  
Reprinted with preface and notes by Matthew J. Bruccoli. New York: Collier  
Books, 1992. Page references are to the 1992 edition.  
Schweitzer, Albert. _J. S. Bach_. Translated by Ernest Newman. 1911.  
Reprint, New York: Dover, 1966.

> **[The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition](https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch17/ch17_sec261.html)**
>
> Find it. Write it. Cite it. The Chicago Manual of Style Online is the venerable, time-tested guide to style, usage, and grammar in an accessible online format. ¶ It is the indispensable reference for writers, editors, proofreaders, indexers,...

Shakespeare, William. _Hamlet_. Arden edition. Edited by Harold Jenkins.  
London: Methuen, 1982.

You might consider those as too complex to worry about?

Julian.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Elena\_Razlogova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Elena\_Razlogova](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Elena_Razlogova)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2007, 2:05pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/24 "2007-12-04T14:05:31Z")

</div>

My apologies in coming to this debate late–I think dates may require  
a more complicated solution than editions.

> It’s not really structured information when you get into things like  
> “Summer 2007” and “circa 1754”, though, is it? (Obviously if it were  
> seen as such, CSL could correctly translate “Summer”, but that  
> definitely seems like something we don’t want to get into, and  
> those are  
> probably relatively easy examples anyway.)

> We should probably come up with some Option 1 and Option 2 examples  
> for  
> funkier dates–handling at least date ranges as additional structured  
> options–before deciding. My sense is that if the date doesn’t parse  
> into supported semantic fields without a remainder, it probably  
> needs to  
> be passed through in its entirety without structure, replacing the  
> whole  
> element, and there wouldn’t be too much point in using extra  
> conditionals. That would avoid issues like the one Sean mentioned  
> in the  
> Zotero forums where the range part of a date range was silently  
> discarded.

I really like “smart” parsing in Zotero when you don’t have to clean  
up dates entered by translators, but:

I seem to remember that some translators entered date issued as “Fri,  
Nov. 30, 2007”–those may present a problem for this solution because  
“Fri” needs to be discarded, whereas in “circa 1754” the entire  
string should be preserved.

It would be great to be able to sort dates such as “Summer 2007” in  
the middle pane–“Summer” should sort before “Fall” and “September”.

Best,  
Elena

---

<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:** [December 4, 2007, 9:53pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/25 "2007-12-04T21:53:33Z")

</div>

Simon Kornblith wrote:

> Option 4 - extract the numeric value from fields when possible, and  
> otherwise, the variable “edition” is the edition as text without any  
> kind of ed/edition suffix. (How this gets done is Zotero’s business,  
> not CSL’s. It’s extraordinarily easy just to strip these suffixes out  
> when the bibliography is generated, but another implementation might  
> just specify not to enter a suffix.) falls back on the text  
> variable if no number is available.

So, for example, the mapping of raw input to CSL variable would be  
something like:

```
"First Edition" ==> "1"
"New Edition" ==> "New"

```

…?

Can we formulate that logic more clearly? Do we apply it to other  
variables (dates, etc.)?

[aside: I wonder if we need a more generic “version” variable too?]

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:** [December 4, 2007, 9:58pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/26 "2007-12-04T21:58:41Z")

</div>

Julian Onions wrote:

> Examples which don’t [work with option 4] from  
> [Page Not Found](http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch17/ch17_sec123.html)

…

> Shakespeare, William. /Hamlet/. Arden edition. Edited by Harold  
> Jenkins. London: Methuen, 1982.

So you’re saying that the number element would be hunting for a number,  
and since “Arden edition” contains no such thing, under Simon’s  
suggested rules, the field would be empty?

On your other note:

> Option 3 - edition\_number and edition\_version style would solve the  
> problem to a degree. I still think it will be as clumsy as the option  
> 1.

It would, with the sole advantage being that it is less ambiguous, which  
was part of my problem with option 1. Note, though, that I didn’t use  
“edition\_version”; I used “edition\_description”.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Julian\_Onions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/958977/32.png) [@Julian\_Onions](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Julian_Onions)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2007, 10:18pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/27 "2007-12-04T22:18:50Z")

</div>

Under the rules suggested I think this would be pruned to “Arden”, and "ed."  
added on, so ending up with “Arden ed.” - which isn’t quite the same as what  
Chicago specifies - but do we care (enough)?  
I think we’d also end up with “Reprint ed.” and  
"Reprinted with preface and notes by Matthew J. Bruccoli. ed."  
again, not quite what Chicago suggests.

The edition field is going to be complex - so we can either try and find  
something like a two line CSL description (option 4) that will cater for  
90+% of all cases, or something more complex (like option 1) that will  
perhaps get to 99% of all cases.  
When all said and done, I think few people will care about the CSL  
description, they’ll just use the results, and won’t care that it takes 2, 5  
or 50 lines to produce what they want.

Julian.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Julian\_Onions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/958977/32.png) [@Julian\_Onions](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Julian_Onions)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 5:14pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/28 "2007-12-11T17:14:11Z")

</div>

Well its been a couple of weeks since I started this thread - does anyone  
think there is any consensus, or should we just ignore the issue and see if  
it really is a problem when deployed?

We had 4 proposals:

1. A new directive which extracts numeric data and allows custom  
formatting.
2. Pass through a number if present just for edition field, else pass the  
whole field.
3. Have edition\_number and edition\_description variables
4. Have the implementation (e.g. zotero) sanitise the field, removing things  
like ed. edition. rd, th, etc to get to something that can have ed. appended  
without worry.

I think we’ve been through most of the pros and cons, and so far I think  
only option 1 handles all the examples from Chicago, but is also the most  
verbose.

I could upload the code for 1. to zotero as a branch if people wanted to try  
it out in practice and see if it is tractable.

Julian.

---

<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:** [December 11, 2007, 11:01pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/29 "2007-12-11T23:01:26Z")

</div>

Julian Onions wrote:

> Well its been a couple of weeks since I started this thread - does  
> anyone think there is any consensus, or should we just ignore the issue  
> and see if it really is a problem when deployed?

I’m not sure.

…

> I could upload the code for 1. to zotero as a branch if people wanted to  
> try it out in practice and see if it is tractable.

I don’t think the issue is how things work on the implementation end.  
It’s how it works on the style authoring end. Whatever solution (if any)  
we use needs to be clear and consistent. Ideally it’s concise, but  
that’s somewhat less of an issue for me.

I’m curious about other opinions, though. As I said earlier, I don’t  
have a ton of time to think about this ATM.

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:** [December 14, 2007, 2:25pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/30 "2007-12-14T14:25:26Z")

</div>

Julian Onions wrote:

> Well its been a couple of weeks since I started this thread - does  
> anyone think there is any consensus, or should we just ignore the issue  
> and see if it really is a problem when deployed?
> 
> We had 4 proposals:
> 
> 1. A new directive which extracts numeric data and allows  
> custom formatting.
> 2. Pass through a number if present just for edition field, else pass  
> the whole field.
> 3. Have edition\_number and edition\_description variables
> 4. Have the implementation (e.g. zotero) sanitise the field, removing  
> things like ed. edition. rd, th, etc to get to something that can have  
> ed. appended without worry.
> 
> I think we’ve been through most of the pros and cons, and so far I think  
> only option 1 handles all the examples from Chicago, but is also the  
> most verbose.

To go back to your example for 1, you suggested:

The 3 example would be similar, but would differentiate number and text  
variables:

So I don’t think 1 has any better support for Chicago than 3?

The primary reason I prefer three is that it in essence makes clear they  
are two distinct fields from the perspective of CSL. It just feels a  
little more intuitive to me.

I think in the context of some uncertainty about the best course, I’m  
prone to accept your opinion Julian, since you’ve written the most styles.

To be clear, it would result in the following schema changes:

a. add a new cs:number element, something like:

number = element cs:number {  
attribute variable {  
“edition”  
\> “volume”  
\> “issue”  
\> “pages”  
}

# plus whatever additional attributes

```
}

```

b. add a new “number” attribute on the conditional structures

c. add (probably) “edition\_description” to the text list.

Right? Anything else?

To be clear, then, also: this would be a backward incompatible change,  
and would require changes in all existing styles (probably easy enough  
with a simple script?).

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Julian\_Onions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/958977/32.png) [@Julian\_Onions](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Julian_Onions)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 9:01pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/31 "2007-12-15T21:01:06Z")

</div>

> Julian Onions wrote:
> 
> > Well its been a couple of weeks since I started this thread - does  
> > anyone think there is any consensus, or should we just ignore the issue  
> > and see if it really is a problem when deployed?
> > 
> > We had 4 proposals:
> > 
> > 1. A new directive which extracts numeric data and allows  
> > custom formatting.
> > 2. Pass through a number if present just for edition field, else pass  
> > the whole field.
> > 3. Have edition\_number and edition\_description variables
> > 4. Have the implementation (e.g. zotero) sanitise the field, removing  
> > things like ed. edition. rd, th, etc to get to something that can have  
> > ed. appended without worry.
> > 
> > I think we’ve been through most of the pros and cons, and so far I think  
> > only option 1 handles all the examples from Chicago, but is also the  
> > most verbose.
> 
> To go back to your example for 1, you suggested:
> 
> The 3 example would be similar, but would differentiate number and text  
> variables:
> 
> So I don’t think 1 has any better support for Chicago than 3?

yes that is true for edition - however in this case I think 1 is more  
general as we don’t have to have a volume\_description an issue\_description  
and so on. I think it also means more work in the processing. Zotero would  
have to work out what to put in each, and what rules would work. Would it  
store a single variable and separate it at process time or split it at  
storage time so allowing editing of the different parts.

The primary reason I prefer three is that it in essence makes clear they

> are two distinct fields from the perspective of CSL. It just feels a  
> little more intuitive to me.

I see it more as two views on the same field. Can we treat it as a number or  
just text, as in many interpreted languages.

I think in the context of some uncertainty about the best course, I’m

> prone to accept your opinion Julian, since you’ve written the most styles.
> 
> To be clear, it would result in the following schema changes:
> 
> a. add a new cs:number element, something like:
> 
> number = element cs:number {  
> attribute variable {  
> “edition”  
> \> “volume”  
> \> “issue”  
> \> “pages”  
> }
> 
> # plus whatever additional attributes
> 
> ```
> }
> 
> ```
> 
> b. add a new “number” attribute on the conditional structures

Or possible isnumber/isnumeric was suggested as more descriptive.

c. add (probably) “edition\_description” to the text list.

I think that just complicates things myself, anyone else have opinions?

Right? Anything else?

The formatting directives - I guess they’re part of the additional  
attributes.

To be clear, then, also: this would be a backward incompatible change,

> and would require changes in all existing styles (probably easy enough  
> with a simple script?).

It would if edition\_description was used, if we had the view edition alone  
was used it would be backwards compatible. However I don’t see either as a  
stumbling block. A number of the new styles don’t work correctly with  
1.0.1anyway.

Julian.

---

<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:** [December 16, 2007, 11:54am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/32 "2007-12-16T11:54:59Z")

</div>

Julian Onions wrote:

…

> yes that is true for edition - however in this case I think 1 is more  
> general as we don’t have to have a volume\_description an  
> issue\_description and so on. I think it also means more work in the  
> processing. Zotero would have to work out what to put in each, and what  
> rules would work. Would it store a single variable and separate it at  
> process time or split it at storage time so allowing editing of the  
> different parts.
> 
> ```
> The primary reason I prefer three is that it in essence makes clear they
> are two distinct fields from the perspective of CSL. It just feels a
> little more intuitive to me.
> 
> ```
> 
> I see it more as two views on the same field. Can we treat it as a  
> number or just text, as in many interpreted languages.

Duck-typing for citation styling 😉

Tell you what, can you come up with clear and concise language that I  
can put in the schema documentation that explains this in terms that  
both programmers and style authors can unambiguously understand?

If we can agree on that, I can integrate the changes.

> ```
> I think in the context of some uncertainty about the best course, I'm
> prone to accept your opinion Julian, since you've written the most
> styles.
> 
> To be clear, it would result in the following schema changes:
> 
> a. add a new cs:number element, something like:
> 
> number = element cs:number {
> attribute variable {
> "edition"
> > "volume"
> > "issue"
> > "pages"
> }
> # plus whatever additional attributes
> }
> 
> b. add a new "number" attribute on the conditional structures
> 
> ```
> 
> Or possible isnumber/isnumeric was suggested as more descriptive.

I missed this.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Julian\_Onions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/958977/32.png) [@Julian\_Onions](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Julian_Onions)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 8:08pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/33 "2007-12-17T20:08:52Z")

</div>

> > I see it more as two views on the same field. Can we treat it as a  
> > number or just text, as in many interpreted languages.
> 
> Duck-typing for citation styling 😉

Could be!

Tell you what, can you come up with clear and concise language that I

> can put in the schema documentation that explains this in terms that  
> both programmers and style authors can unambiguously understand?

I’ll have a go.

"The number markup directive matches the first number found in a field, and  
returns only that component. If no number is detected, the result is empty.  
A non-empty number may be subject to further formatting consisting of a form  
attribute whose value may be numeric, ordinal or roman to format it as a  
simple number (the default), an ordinal number (1st, 2nd, 3rd etc) or roman  
(i, ii, iii, iv etc). The text-case can also apply to capitalize the roman  
numbers for instance. The other normal formatting rules apply too  
(font-style, …).

When used in a conditional, number/isnumber tests if there is a  
number present, allowing conditional formatting."

Julian.

---

<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:** [December 18, 2007, 6:17pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/34 "2007-12-18T18:17:35Z")

</div>

Julian Onions wrote:

> ```
> > I see it more as two views on the same field. Can we treat it as a
> > number or just text, as in many interpreted languages.
> 
> Duck-typing for citation styling ;-)
> 
> ```
> 
> Could be!
> 
> ```
> Tell you what, can you come up with clear and concise language that I
> can put in the schema documentation that explains this in terms that
> both programmers and style authors can unambiguously understand?
> 
> ```
> 
> I’ll have a go.

OK, I’ve added it, along with a “datatype” conditional (with options for  
“number” and “date”; more flexible going forward, but still works for  
this case?).

Take a look as a) I’m busy (leaving town tomorrow), and b) under the  
weather. I wouldn’t be surprised if I made some stupid mistake.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Julian\_Onions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/958977/32.png) [@Julian\_Onions](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Julian_Onions)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 8:03pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/35 "2007-12-18T20:03:31Z")

</div>

Looks good - I like the datatype idea.  
I’ve fixed up a couple of minor issues.

Julian.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Julian\_Onions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/958977/32.png) [@Julian\_Onions](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Julian_Onions)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 8:08pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/36 "2007-12-18T20:08:07Z")

</div>

How do you test a variable for being a number with the datatype?  
Is it  
  
in which case how do you tie the datatype and the variable together?  
I may well be missing something here!

Julian.

---

<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:** [December 18, 2007, 8:30pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/37 "2007-12-18T20:30:09Z")

</div>

Julian Onions wrote:

> How do you test a variable for being a number with the datatype?  
> Is it  
>   
> in which case how do you tie the datatype and the variable together?  
> I may well be missing something here!

I honestly didn’t put much thought into it, so I wouldn’t read a lot  
into how I implemented it. But the above seems reasonable to me. Did you  
have something else in mind?

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Julian\_Onions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/958977/32.png) [@Julian\_Onions](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Julian_Onions)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 8:52pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/38 "2007-12-18T20:52:25Z")

</div>

I’m not sure how to implement it, as you could have  
  
it seems a little confusing on a second look.  
Really the datatype needs to be tied to a variable.  
something like  
  
for instance is a little confusing.  
I can try and get it to work though if we agree to limit the semantics a  
little so the above is not included.

Julian.

---

<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:** [December 18, 2007, 9:10pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/39 "2007-12-18T21:10:11Z")

</div>

> I’m not sure how to implement it, as you could have  
>   
> it seems a little confusing on a second look.  
> Really the datatype needs to be tied to a variable.  
> something like  
>   
> for instance is a little confusing.

That wouldn’t be valid. The value of datatype is either one or the  
other; not both.

> I can try and get it to work though if we agree to limit the semantics a  
> little so the above is not included.

Does the above address your concern?

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Julian\_Onions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/958977/32.png) [@Julian\_Onions](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Julian_Onions)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 10:32pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386/40 "2007-12-18T22:32:57Z")

</div>

It makes the code slightly harder, but its doable. I’ll let you know if not.

Julian.

[Previous page](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/chapters-volumes-and-editions/386.md?page=3)