Pandoc is using chicago-author-date as their default citation style,
and as a consequence of turned up some funky style bugs. This style is
trying to be far too clever, and as a consequence, doesn’t work very
well. Consider this macro:
Before I hack this, does anyone know why this macro is so complicated
,with all the long-lists of type-based tests?
For pandoc, I suggest you use APA as default.
Bruce
The style is complicated because it citing all reference types
according to Chicago as correctly as possible.
What are the problems with the style?
Elena
It’s mostly around “Anon” substitution (already fixed), and point
locator labels. See, for example:
http://groups.google.com/group/pandoc-discuss/msg/7165944a1822af0f
I am assuming this problem is related to the “point-locators” macro,
but am not sure.
Bruce
“Bruce D’Arcus” <@Bruce_D_Arcus1> writes:
The style is complicated because it citing all reference types
according to Chicago as correctly as possible.What are the problems with the style?
It’s mostly around “Anon” substitution (already fixed), and point
locator labels. See, for example:http://groups.google.com/group/pandoc-discuss/msg/7165944a1822af0f
I am assuming this problem is related to the “point-locators” macro,
but am not sure.
Yes, it seems like “point-locators” is buggy since it renders the
locator’s label (p., chap., etc.) only for a limited set of entry types
(for instance, books but not a book’s chapter or an article) while it
renders the locator (the page or chapter number) for every type. But
this is just my guess, based John’s reactions. It may be possible that
this is a Chicago style requirement – I wouldn’t know.
Andrea
FYI, from pandoc author John MacFarlane; might be useful for us in
fixing styles?
I’ve generated test output for every style in the current
citation-style-language repository, to make it easier to
check for problems:
http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/csltest/
Lots of the styles seem to have problems of various sorts!
(At least when used with our system.)
John
“Bruce D’Arcus” <@Bruce_D_Arcus1> writes:
The style is complicated because it citing all reference types
according to Chicago as correctly as possible.What are the problems with the style?
It’s mostly around “Anon” substitution (already fixed), and point
locator labels. See, for example:http://groups.google.com/group/pandoc-discuss/msg/7165944a1822af0f
I am assuming this problem is related to the “point-locators” macro,
but am not sure.Yes, it seems like “point-locators” is buggy since it renders the
locator’s label (p., chap., etc.) only for a limited set of entry types
(for instance, books but not a book’s chapter or an article) while it
renders the locator (the page or chapter number) for every type. But
this is just my guess, based John’s reactions. It may be possible that
this is a Chicago style requirement – I wouldn’t know.
“Anon.” programming was done before I got to the style, but I did the
locators and point-locators.
In the Chicago style, “p.” is not rendered for pages in book, book
chapter, article, etc.
“Chap.” should be rendered for books, but not for book sections. I.e.
if the reference in the bibliography is a chapter, only page no should
be cited.
But it looks like the problem goes beyond the “p.” issue. Because “p.”
is not rendered for books, but other point-locators should be
rendered, the programming is complicated, there are lots of
conditions, etc.–I will look for bugs.
There also may be errors because I didn’t check the style after Frank
revised the CSL and Zotero citation code–I think conditions work in a
slightly different way in the new setup.
Best,
Elena
It’s great to see work on style-level testing. It might be interesting
to have a core suite of test templates in the standard test format.
People with an interest in support for particular styles could then
provide result strings, so that the style could be brought under the
test framework.
Any possibility that the Pandoc test suite might be migrated to the
shared test framework? It might help move the community in that
direction.
Frank
What would you need? The raw markdown template doc, and the test data?
Bruce
It’s great to see work on style-level testing. It might be interesting
to have a core suite of test templates in the standard test format.
People with an interest in support for particular styles could then
provide result strings, so that the style could be brought under the
test framework.Any possibility that the Pandoc test suite might be migrated to the
shared test framework?What would you need? The raw markdown template doc, and the test data?
I’m tied down with work on legal support, but if someone were to work
on this, they would probably find a set of standard tests most useful.
Frank
I don’t know what that means, though. That this markdown + data gets
converted into the JSON test format you developed?
One issue is that CSL proper is silent on some details of citations
(like citation prefixes).
Bruce
It’s great to see work on style-level testing. It might be interesting
to have a core suite of test templates in the standard test format.
People with an interest in support for particular styles could then
provide result strings, so that the style could be brought under the
test framework.Any possibility that the Pandoc test suite might be migrated to the
shared test framework?What would you need? The raw markdown template doc, and the test data?
I’m tied down with work on legal support, but if someone were to work
on this, they would probably find a set of standard tests most useful.I don’t know what that means, though. That this markdown + data gets
converted into the JSON test format you developed?
That’s the one. The format of the tests that Andrea is using for
development, and that will be converted for use with the
cross-processor testing engine that Sylvester is working on.
It is very easy to use the test data with citeproc-js using the Ruby wrapper. I’ve put the code and example output into a gist if anyone is interested:
It’s great to see work on style-level testing. It might be interesting
to have a core suite of test templates in the standard test format.
People with an interest in support for particular styles could then
provide result strings, so that the style could be brought under the
test framework.Any possibility that the Pandoc test suite might be migrated to the
shared test framework?What would you need? The raw markdown template doc, and the test data?
It is very easy to use the test data with citeproc-js using the Ruby wrapper. I’ve put the code and example output into a gist if anyone is interested:
Aha. Nevermind …