…
But we might consider if there may be need for other examples, such
that we might have a more generic option like:
… with me not quite sure what “foo” should be called. Kind of
related to previous discussion of the counting case, where we had
proposed attributes like min-value and max-value (or something like
that).
This would be great to have, if “foo” is just variable.
Maybe. But I’m not really sure this example is a (data) variable per
se. Might not make a difference though.
This would open the way to jurisdiction-specific styling. For example:
MACRO FOR VIETNAMESE STATUTES
DEFAULT STATUTE MACRO
I’ve been thinking that I’ll want this kind of conditional branching
when I get to statutory material, but I’ve also been thinking that the
structure of the style code could run out of control if you weren’t
careful – instead of puzzling over exceptional cases, having a
discussion, and coming up with a minimal solution, I could just add
some stringy code to the style for each case (and then add some more,
and then …).
Not sure what Simon will say about this idea; but if used carefully,
it certainly would add a welcome flexibility. Personally, I’m very
much in favour. Andrea? Other folks?
Anyone?
Bruce
typing too fast; this:
… (and perhaps annotating communicating someone with the plug-in to figure out which particular
string or annotations to pass on).
… should be:
“… (and perhaps annotating or communicating somehow …”
Bruce
(waking thought – it’s 7:00am here)
We’re not actually in disagreement, are we. There is a need to
distinguish proper footnotes that are “sticky” in all styles from
references that should render in the main text for the bib styles;
there is a need for CSL to be able to track the note numbers of
references that occur in footnotes; and there is currently a known
problem with back-referencing of Zotero references inserted directly
into a footnote.
Basically, we both just want these issues to be sorted out. I’ve done
my weekend hacker thing and stomped around in the sources to produce
something that works locally; but I really should keep my mouth shut
about implementation details, because I really don’t know what I’m
talking about, and most of what I say just adds confusion. Simon will
no doubt say as much when the team lets go of the 1.5 beta release,
and he has time to read this. I know that I’m a bull in a china
closet here, and I’ll certainly eat that humble pie.
This discussion has been really fruitful in clarifying the behaviour
that is required for the two types of style. When the programmers get
back to the integration side of things, we have a unified set of
things to ask for that satisfy everyone’s needs.
If we’re agreed that CSL should be able to track note numbers (however
that’s done), is it okay to settle the CSL syntax for the present? In
this thread, I think the alternatives are:
Rintze:
FULL
SHORT
Bruce:
FULL
SHORT
I Bruce’s solution a lot. He has raised the point that
consecutive-short-form is different from the field variables, with a
call for comments. It’s a variable (like first-reference), so it
looks okay to me. To make it clear that it’s counting the number of
notes, rather than the number of references, would a name like
distance-to-full-form be better?
Frank
I have completed a tour through the code of Zotero, tweaking and
extending the code to support the Bluebook style, for use in our
faculty writing programs. Unavoidably, some of the changes have
touched on CSL. To the extent that CSL contemplates Bluebook support,
the functionality we have implemented here will be required. I would
welcome a discussion of the changes, with a view to including them, or
some concrete alternative, in official CSL. I have no special
attachment to the solutions I have implemented here; but the use cases
do need to be covered.
Here are the changes, and the use cases that they address.
[A] Note number backreferences
Example:
- John Doe, The Laws of Lilliput 123 (1900)
- Jane Roe, A Lilliputian Disputation (1905)
- Doe, supra note 1.
Problem:
The note number is required in the back-reference.
Solution:
Makes sense. Care to propose the comment text for the schema?
Here is a proposed schema text for first references:
the number of a footnote containing the first reference to this
item. value is a positive integer if the first reference is
in a footnote.
“first-reference-footnote-number”
…
Here is a proposed schema text for first references:
the number of a footnote containing the first reference to this
item. value is a positive integer if the first reference is
in a footnote.
“first-reference-footnote-number”
I think this may be a little too close to the metal/presentational.
What happens if the style uses endnotes? ATM I can’t see any problem
with “first-reference-note-number,” since I don’t believe this would
apply to non-note styles?
Bruce
…
Here is a proposed schema text for first references:
the number of a footnote containing the first reference to this
item. value is a positive integer if the first reference is
in a footnote.
“first-reference-footnote-number”
I think this may be a little too close to the metal/presentational.
What happens if the style uses endnotes? ATM I can’t see any problem
with “first-reference-note-number,” since I don’t believe this would
apply to non-note styles?
Very true. As far as I know this would not be needed by non-note styles.
Amended text might be …
the number of a note containing the first reference to this
item. value is a positive integer if the first reference is
in a note.
“first-reference-note-number”
So I’m adding this ATM. I wonder, should we define this a little more
tightly? E.g. something like:
“The number of a preceding note containing the first reference to this
item. Relevant only for note-based styles.”
…?
So, for example, the variable would be null if this was a first reference.
Bruce
Very true. As far as I know this would not be needed by non-note styles.
Amended text might be …
the number of a note containing the first reference to this
item. value is a positive integer if the first reference is
in a note.
“first-reference-note-number”
So I’m adding this ATM. I wonder, should we define this a little more
tightly? E.g. something like:
“The number of a preceding note containing the first reference to this
item. Relevant only for note-based styles.”
…?
So, for example, the variable would be null if this was a first reference.
Sounds good. The value might be available, but it would be ignored by
bibliography-based styles.
Sounds good. The value might be available, but it would be ignored by
bibliography-based styles.
OK, I added it.
Great! Re that opening salvo of issues relating to cases that I
posted a few days ago, I’d like to take those off the table for the
time being. There will be a bundle of potential additons to consider,
and it’s probably better to gather them into one package, for
consideration at a time of year when everyone has time available.
I’ve set up our local version of Zotero, that will be used by me and
by students, to do forward and backward migration to the main trunk
schema. That will allow us to go forward with implementation, learn
from our mistakes, and offer a more orderly set of proposals to
CSL-dev.
Frank