CSL class attributes

I’m getting close to the bibliography part of the work on citeproc-js,
and I need some guidance on the class= attribute.

The spec provides for class=“note” and class=“in-text”. It looks like
the former is for note styles, and the latter for styles that rely on
a bibliography with in-text citation keys. The spec also contains
this comment:

The schema attribute should be understood to specify the controlled

CSL category list. The terms thus typically include further logic,

such as the broader categories to which they belong (“humanities”,

“social sciences”) as well as the class of style (“author-date”,

“note”, etc.).

It looks like “author-date” should “in-text”, and as if the etc.
should be dropped, since valid styles are always of one or the other
of the two classes. Would that assumption be correct?

There is also a provision for a class= attribute on group tags. A
number of styles use it, but the spec doesn’t provide any indication
of what it does. Is it some sort of legacy thing that’s become a
noop, or should it affect processing in some way?

Frank

I’m getting close to the bibliography part of the work on citeproc-js,
and I need some guidance on the class= attribute.

The spec provides for class=“note” and class=“in-text”. It looks like
the former is for note styles, and the latter for styles that rely on
a bibliography with in-text citation keys. The spec also contains
this comment:

The schema attribute should be understood to specify the controlled

CSL category list. The terms thus typically include further logic,

such as the broader categories to which they belong (“humanities”,

“social sciences”) as well as the class of style (“author-date”,

“note”, etc.).

It looks like “author-date” should “in-text”, and as if the etc.
should be dropped, since valid styles are always of one or the other
of the two classes. Would that assumption be correct?

One other question on class= in the style tag. Would it be correct to
assume that with class=“in-text”, the citation key requires
disambiguation, but with class=“note” disambiguation is never
required?

Frank

I’m getting close to the bibliography part of the work on citeproc-js,
and I need some guidance on the class= attribute.

The spec provides for class=“note” and class=“in-text”. It looks like
the former is for note styles, and the latter for styles that rely on
a bibliography with in-text citation keys. The spec also contains
this comment:

The schema attribute should be understood to specify the controlled

CSL category list. The terms thus typically include further logic,

such as the broader categories to which they belong (“humanities”,

“social sciences”) as well as the class of style (“author-date”,

“note”, etc.).

It looks like “author-date” should “in-text”, and as if the etc.
should be dropped, since valid styles are always of one or the other
of the two classes. Would that assumption be correct?

No; this element is drawn from Atom, and is designed not for
processing, but discovery.

There is also a provision for a class= attribute on group tags. A
number of styles use it, but the spec doesn’t provide any indication
of what it does. Is it some sort of legacy thing that’s become a
noop, or should it affect processing in some way?

Ideally, you pass those on for output styling (in CSS, or WP styles).

A somewhat related aside: I’d also like to see an RDFa-enhanced output mode.

Bruce

Seems a reasonable assumption.

Effectively, disambiguation is required b/c in-text citation markers
are constructed on-the-fly. This is not required in note styles (or
even many in-text styles come to think of it).

Bruce

Disambiguation is still necessary for subsequent note citations,
although I don’t know whether any note-based styles use a year suffix
(as opposed to adding a title, etc.).

Simon

One other question on class= in the style tag. Would it be correct
to
assume that with class=“in-text”, the citation key requires
disambiguation, but with class=“note” disambiguation is never
required?

Seems a reasonable assumption.

Effectively, disambiguation is required b/c in-text citation markers
are constructed on-the-fly. This is not required in note styles (or
even many in-text styles come to think of it).

Disambiguation is still necessary for subsequent note citations,
although I don’t know whether any note-based styles use a year suffix
(as opposed to adding a title, etc.).

Okay, I’ll treat the two cases uniformly. Too early to say for sure,
but I think this might mean that the distinction between the two
classes goes away, as far as processing is concerned.

I was worried about how to handle the bibliography stuff, because I
was feeling some strain just getting citations to work. But cites are
pretty well under control now, and I think I’ve worked out a way to
get bibliographies sorted and disambiguation done without a huge
resource spike. I’ll start putting the plan into place in parallel
with building the names handler. It will take awhile, but there is a
glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

Frank

I’m getting close to the bibliography part of the work on citeproc-js,
and I need some guidance on the class= attribute.

The spec provides for class=“note” and class=“in-text”. It looks like
the former is for note styles, and the latter for styles that rely on
a bibliography with in-text citation keys. The spec also contains
this comment:

The schema attribute should be understood to specify the controlled

CSL category list. The terms thus typically include further logic,

such as the broader categories to which they belong (“humanities”,

“social sciences”) as well as the class of style (“author-date”,

“note”, etc.).

It looks like “author-date” should “in-text”, and as if the etc.
should be dropped, since valid styles are always of one or the other
of the two classes. Would that assumption be correct?

No; this element is drawn from Atom, and is designed not for
processing, but discovery.

There is also a provision for a class= attribute on group tags. A
number of styles use it, but the spec doesn’t provide any indication
of what it does. Is it some sort of legacy thing that’s become a
noop, or should it affect processing in some way?

Ideally, you pass those on for output styling (in CSS, or WP styles).

A somewhat related aside: I’d also like to see an RDFa-enhanced output mode.

I don’t know what RDF-a is, but here’s the output template for citeproc-js:

http://xbiblio.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/xbiblio/citeproc-js/src/formats.js?revision=641

If the template can’t be adapted to the RDF-a format, the conversion
is probably not an appropriate task for this particular tool.

Frank

I’m getting close to the bibliography part of the work on citeproc-js,
and I need some guidance on the class= attribute.

The spec provides for class=“note” and class=“in-text”. It looks like
the former is for note styles, and the latter for styles that rely on
a bibliography with in-text citation keys. The spec also contains
this comment:

The schema attribute should be understood to specify the controlled

CSL category list. The terms thus typically include further logic,

such as the broader categories to which they belong (“humanities”,

“social sciences”) as well as the class of style (“author-date”,

“note”, etc.).

It looks like “author-date” should “in-text”, and as if the etc.
should be dropped, since valid styles are always of one or the other
of the two classes. Would that assumption be correct?

No; this element is drawn from Atom, and is designed not for
processing, but discovery.

There is also a provision for a class= attribute on group tags. A
number of styles use it, but the spec doesn’t provide any indication
of what it does. Is it some sort of legacy thing that’s become a
noop, or should it affect processing in some way?

Ideally, you pass those on for output styling (in CSS, or WP styles).

Great. That makes good sense and it’s easy to do. I’ll set it up soon.

Frank