I’m blanking on this; do we support #1 in this user’s list?
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/7152/citation-style-for-biotropica-little-help-needed/
Do we have a test for it?
If not, we need to add this to the TODO.
Bruce
I’m blanking on this; do we support #1 in this user’s list?
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/7152/citation-style-for-biotropica-little-help-needed/
Do we have a test for it?
Currently, we can do this:
(Condit et al. 2000, 1995, 1998; Connell 1971; Cortes & Hunziker 1997)
But not this:
(Condit et al. 2000, 1995, 1998; Connell 1971, Cortes & Hunziker 1997)
He’s needing to change the trailing delimiter on collapsed blocks.
Currently we can customize the delimiters within collapsed sets, but
use a single default delimiter between collapsed blocks. This would
need another option to supply the special delimiter value. Not sure
what to call it. Something like “after-collapse-delimiter”?
I’m blanking on this; do we support #1 in this user’s list?
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/7152/citation-style-for-biotropica-little-help-needed/
Do we have a test for it?
Currently, we can do this:
(Condit et al. 2000, 1995, 1998; Connell 1971; Cortes & Hunziker 1997)
But not this:
(Condit et al. 2000, 1995, 1998; Connell 1971, Cortes & Hunziker 1997)
He’s needing to change the trailing delimiter on collapsed blocks.
Currently we can customize the delimiters within collapsed sets, but
use a single default delimiter between collapsed blocks. This would
need another option to supply the special delimiter value. Not sure
what to call it. Something like “after-collapse-delimiter”?
Have added a test for this, code to come. The test incidentally
uncovered a couple of silly bugs elsewhere that were very good to
discover.
I’m blanking on this; do we support #1 in this user’s list?
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/7152/citation-style-for-biotropica-little-help-needed/
Do we have a test for it?
Currently, we can do this:
(Condit et al. 2000, 1995, 1998; Connell 1971; Cortes & Hunziker 1997)
But not this:
(Condit et al. 2000, 1995, 1998; Connell 1971, Cortes & Hunziker 1997)
Oh, I missed that wrinkle. That is a dumb rule that may well be a “won’t fix.”
Thoughts?
He’s needing to change the trailing delimiter on collapsed blocks.
Currently we can customize the delimiters within collapsed sets, but
use a single default delimiter between collapsed blocks. This would
need another option to supply the special delimiter value. Not sure
what to call it. Something like “after-collapse-delimiter”?
Bruce
I’m blanking on this; do we support #1 in this user’s list?
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/7152/citation-style-for-biotropica-little-help-needed/
Do we have a test for it?
Currently, we can do this:
(Condit et al. 2000, 1995, 1998; Connell 1971; Cortes & Hunziker 1997)
But not this:
(Condit et al. 2000, 1995, 1998; Connell 1971, Cortes & Hunziker 1997)
Oh, I missed that wrinkle. That is a dumb rule that may well be a “won’t fix.”
Thoughts?
If you’re willing to add an option for it, it’s nearly implemented.
Up to you. I’d kind of like to go forward with it as a way of putting
something back – the test I wrote for it turned to bugs in the
citeproc-js code, which was very helpful. 
I’m blanking on this; do we support #1 in this user’s list?
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/7152/citation-style-for-biotropica-little-help-needed/
Do we have a test for it?
Currently, we can do this:
(Condit et al. 2000, 1995, 1998; Connell 1971; Cortes & Hunziker 1997)
But not this:
(Condit et al. 2000, 1995, 1998; Connell 1971, Cortes & Hunziker 1997)
Oh, I missed that wrinkle. That is a dumb rule that may well be a “won’t fix.”
Thoughts?
If you’re willing to add an option for it, it’s nearly implemented.
Up to you. I’d kind of like to go forward with it as a way of putting
something back – the test I wrote for it turned to bugs in the
citeproc-js code, which was very helpful.
It’s been implemented.
http://bitbucket.org/fbennett/citeproc-js/src/tip/std/humans/collapse_TrailingDelimiter.txt
Since the requester did post a link to a proper style guide with this
requirement, it probably makes sense to go ahead and support it.
…
It’s been implemented.
http://bitbucket.org/fbennett/citeproc-js/src/tip/std/humans/collapse_TrailingDelimiter.txt
Since the requester did post a link to a proper style guide with this
requirement, it probably makes sense to go ahead and support it.
That’s not the criteria we’re using here. There are a lot of little
quirks in real world styles that we could implement, but where doing
so adds unwarranted complexity.
I’ll look at your proposal later, but my question in evaluating is:
Can we explain its function in clear English, such that it can be
included in a GUI in a way that a user would have a clear
understanding of what it means.
OK …
…
He’s needing to change the trailing delimiter on collapsed blocks.
Currently we can customize the delimiters within collapsed sets, but
use a single default delimiter between collapsed blocks. This would
need another option to supply the special delimiter value. Not sure
what to call it. Something like “after-collapse-delimiter”?
I think this discussion exposes other problems in how delimiter
applies to a citation layout. I’ve hinted at this earlier.
Right now, “delimiter” is vague: does it refer to citation references
within a citation group, or author groups within it?
So unless I just haven’t had enough caffeine yet, I think we first
need to clarify this, and document it better.
…
I think this discussion exposes other problems in how delimiter
applies to a citation layout. I’ve hinted at this earlier.Right now, “delimiter” is vague: does it refer to citation references
within a citation group, or author groups within it?
So, for example, what does this mean?
<names variable="author" delimiter="; ">
<name delimiter=", "/>
</names>
Would the result be “Jane, Doe; John, Smith”?
Related: why is the “delimiter-precedes-last” attribute on cs:name and
note cs:names?
Am I wrong that this is all too fuzzy?
Bruce
…
I think this discussion exposes other problems in how delimiter
applies to a citation layout. I’ve hinted at this earlier.Right now, “delimiter” is vague: does it refer to citation references
within a citation group, or author groups within it?So, for example, what does this mean?
<names variable="author" delimiter="; "> <name delimiter=", "/> </names>Would the result be “Jane, Doe; John, Smith”?
No, the spacing in the straight-up name form is implicit. The
delimiters are for joins between names, and between namesets. The
semicolon in the example above would have no effect, because there is
only one nameset. The comma could fall between the names: Jane Doe,
John Smith. The delimiter on names comes into play when there are
multiple namesets. So:
Jane Doe and John Roe (eds.); John Smith and Jane Brown (trans.)
Related: why is the “delimiter-precedes-last” attribute on cs:name and
note cs:names?
Given that behaviour, delimiter-precedes-last is in the right place:
Jane Doe, and John Roe (eds.); John Smith, and Jane Brown (trans.)
Am I wrong that this is all too fuzzy?
A lot of the confusion arises from the names (no pun intended) given
to the elements. Names would be more clear as namesets. Name would
be more clear as names. And there is the off-by-one naming of the
collapse options.
The item I’m arguing for in this thread is pretty straightforward, if
you set aside the problem of what to call it. As semicolon is used
after any series of collapsed citations, instead of a comma. This is
an aide to readability, highlighting that multiple references by a
particular author are being cited – a fact that might otherwise be
missed where a citation is truncated to the year suffix only.
There is a sound editorial reason for this rule (readability), and if
we weren’t encountering it at the end of a long trek through a number
of more demanding rules that also result in the elimination of a
single space or the replacement of a single character, we probably
wouldn’t think twice about it.
…
I think this discussion exposes other problems in how delimiter
applies to a citation layout. I’ve hinted at this earlier.Right now, “delimiter” is vague: does it refer to citation references
within a citation group, or author groups within it?So, for example, what does this mean?
<names variable="author" delimiter="; "> <name delimiter=", "/> </names>Would the result be “Jane, Doe; John, Smith”?
No, the spacing in the straight-up name form is implicit. The
delimiters are for joins between names, and between namesets. The
semicolon in the example above would have no effect, because there is
only one nameset. The comma could fall between the names: Jane Doe,
John Smith. The delimiter on names comes into play when there are
multiple namesets. So:Jane Doe and John Roe (eds.); John Smith and Jane Brown (trans.)
Ah, right. So this clearly needs to be better documented.
Related: why is the “delimiter-precedes-last” attribute on cs:name and
note cs:names?Given that behaviour, delimiter-precedes-last is in the right place:
Jane Doe, and John Roe (eds.); John Smith, and Jane Brown (trans.)
Am I wrong that this is all too fuzzy?
A lot of the confusion arises from the names (no pun intended) given
to the elements. Names would be more clear as namesets. Name would
be more clear as names.
Well, there’s actually three levels here:
-
what you call name sets are names grouped by role (cs:names)
-
the list of names specific to a role (cs:name)
-
the individual contributor (??)
And there is the off-by-one naming of the
collapse options.The item I’m arguing for in this thread is pretty straightforward, if
you set aside the problem of what to call it. As semicolon is used
after any series of collapsed citations, instead of a comma.
That’s one way to explain it; the way you understand it as an implementer.
But there’s another way to understand this: that it’s the delimiter
for #2 above, but just that this style says “if number of contributors
is 1, use ', ', else '; '”
…
I think this discussion exposes other problems in how delimiter
applies to a citation layout. I’ve hinted at this earlier.Right now, “delimiter” is vague: does it refer to citation references
within a citation group, or author groups within it?So, for example, what does this mean?
<names variable="author" delimiter="; "> <name delimiter=", "/> </names>Would the result be “Jane, Doe; John, Smith”?
No, the spacing in the straight-up name form is implicit. The
delimiters are for joins between names, and between namesets. The
semicolon in the example above would have no effect, because there is
only one nameset. The comma could fall between the names: Jane Doe,
John Smith. The delimiter on names comes into play when there are
multiple namesets. So:Jane Doe and John Roe (eds.); John Smith and Jane Brown (trans.)
Ah, right. So this clearly needs to be better documented.
Related: why is the “delimiter-precedes-last” attribute on cs:name and
note cs:names?Given that behaviour, delimiter-precedes-last is in the right place:
Jane Doe, and John Roe (eds.); John Smith, and Jane Brown (trans.)
Am I wrong that this is all too fuzzy?
A lot of the confusion arises from the names (no pun intended) given
to the elements. Names would be more clear as namesets. Name would
be more clear as names.Well, there’s actually three levels here:
what you call name sets are names grouped by role (cs:names)
the list of names specific to a role (cs:name)
the individual contributor (??)
And there is the off-by-one naming of the
collapse options.The item I’m arguing for in this thread is pretty straightforward, if
you set aside the problem of what to call it. As semicolon is used
after any series of collapsed citations, instead of a comma.That’s one way to explain it; the way you understand it as an implementer.
But there’s another way to understand this: that it’s the delimiter
for #2 above, but just that this style says “if number of contributors
is 1, use ', ', else '; '”
Ah! I got it. The example was ambiguous, isn’t it, and could be
understood to turn on the number of names/namesets. If that were the
case, I would agree that it’s a silly rule. But it’s not about the
names, it’s about collapsing (I checked in the style guide linked by
the forum poster). Here’s the example from the poster:
(Condit et al. 2000, 1995, 1998; Connell 1971, Cortes & Hunziker 1997)
Here’s the rule from the linked style guide:
Use commas (Yaz & Taz 1981, Ramirez 1983) to separate citations, BUT
use semicolon for different types of citations (Fig. 4; Table 2) or
with multiple dates per author (Yaz et al. 1982a, b; Taz 1990, 1991).
Order references by year, then alphabetical (Azy 1980, Yaz 1980, Azy
1985).
So it’s the collapsing of multiple cites (2000, 1995, 1998) that
triggers the rule, not the number of creators (Condit et al.).
There’s a glitch in the poster’s example – the sort is all messed up
– but the use of the semicolon is consistent with the journal’s rule.
The explanatory text would read something like: