Dear all,
I think it makes sense to put out a timely CSL 1.0.1 release in the next
few months, instead of waiting any longer for the Zotero team to address
all the tickets affecting the Zotero data model (see
https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues).
Since the release of CSL 1.0 I’ve rewritten most of the specification for
increased precision and clarity. I closed a number of tickets which should
all be listed in http://goo.gl/mD2Ez (source:
https://github.com/citation-style-language/documentation/blob/master/release-notes-CSL-1.0.1.txt).
The rendered version of the trunk specification can be seen at
http://goo.gl/r5gkH (source:
https://github.com/citation-style-language/documentation/blob/master/specification.txt).
In order to prepare for 1.0.1, I would like to make one last round of
tickets we can close without too much discussion. I identified several
candidates which I would like to receive feedback on. If I don’t receive
feedback in the next two weeks, I assume people have no objections against
their implementation. Feel free to suggest other tickets that you think are
uncontroversial that I might have missed. Please provide feedback on
individual tickets via the GitHub issue tracker.
Tickets:
Allow dependent styles to define an overriding default-locale value
My opinion: would like to implement proposal as is
My question: whether any CSL-implementators have problems with this, since
information in dependent styles will start to affect how the independent
parent style is rendered
Create new terms for commonly used text strings
My opinion: would like to add terms for “supra” and “available-at”. I’m not
yet convinced that any of the other candidates are popular enough to
warrant a term.
My question: what happens if a CSL 1.0.1 processor encounters a CSL 1.0.1
style calling a new term and only has a CSL 1.0 locale file which doesn’t
define the term? (CSL 1.0.1 should be backward-compatible) Would it make
sense to have a hardcoded list with default term values in each CSL
processor for CSL 1.0.1 terms?
Add “page-range-format” option for OSCOLA
My opinion: would like to implement proposal as is, although I’m still
undecided about the best name of the attribute value. It’s a bit nitpicky,
but I prefer “minimum-two” over “minimal-two” (
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=935755 )
Add a test condition context=“citation” / context=“bibliography”
(probably will mostly be used in complex styles, which are less likely to
be ever edited with a style editor)
My opinion: would like to implement proposal
Spec language for multiple numbers
My opinion: would be good to implement, but need input from Frank and
others, and this will need some polishing
My opinion: I already added a “dimensions” term, but I think we probably
should also add “scale”. Furthermore, we probably need accompanying terms
as well.
Best,
Rintze