# Empty access dates in CSL 1.0

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/empty-access-dates-in-csl-1-0/847>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [May 22, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/empty-access-dates-in-csl-1-0/847 "2010-05-22T22:56:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/empty-access-dates-in-csl-1-0/847/1 "2010-05-22T22:56:34Z")

</div>

While setting up a test for a bug query against the MHRA style, I  
found the processor throwing cites like Smith, “Book A”, 2000  
[accessed n.d.].

The style renders the URL and the access date without conditional  
wrappers, on the assumption that (a) if the URL is nil, access date  
will also be nil; and (b) a nil date will render nothing. The CSL 1.0  
specification calls for empty dates to render the “no date” term,  
hence the output above.

This will be a common issue in styles. In the repository, 60 styles  
use the “accessed” term, and 102 styles use the “accessed” variable.  
It can be protected against with a conditional wrapper that tests for  
the “accessed” variable, but unfortunately it’s not super-simple to  
apply. The code in this case looks like this:

Fixing the style in this case requires a conditional wrapper around  
the enclosing group (or around both the cs:text and cs:date nodes) –  
if only cs:date is wrapped, you get the “accessed” term in the output,  
because no attempt is made to render a variable partner within the  
scope of the group.

This may get kind of messy. A simpler solution would be to block the  
"no date" substitution behavior for the “accessed” variable, inside  
the processor. I think that would be safe – at least I can’t think  
of any cases in which someone would want “accessed” to render as  
"n.d.". It would save a lot of work and a lot of code lines, since  
all that would be required is a mention in the specification, and a  
one-line change to the processor code.

I also noticed that the “no date” substitution behavior isn’t  
mentioned in the upgrade notes. It’s a significant change (and a good  
one, I still think), so maybe it should be mentioned there.

On both counts, I can merge in some proposed language for review, if desired.

Frank

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:10pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/empty-access-dates-in-csl-1-0/847/2 "2010-05-24T15:10:57Z")

</div>

> While setting up a test for a bug query against the MHRA style, I  
> found the processor throwing cites like Smith, “Book A”, 2000  
> [accessed n.d.].
> 
> The style renders the URL and the access date without conditional  
> wrappers, on the assumption that (a) if the URL is nil, access date  
> will also be nil; and (b) a nil date will render nothing. The CSL 1.0  
> specification calls for empty dates to render the “no date” term,  
> hence the output above.

Hmm … I must have entirely missed this, or forgotten about it.

Before we move on, I have an uncomfortable question to ask:

I wonder if this is a good idea in general. Isn’t it better to require  
style authors to code for adding “n.d.” in general?

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/empty-access-dates-in-csl-1-0/847/3 "2010-05-24T19:21:14Z")

</div>

> > While setting up a test for a bug query against the MHRA style, I  
> > found the processor throwing cites like Smith, “Book A”, 2000  
> > [accessed n.d.].
> > 
> > The style renders the URL and the access date without conditional  
> > wrappers, on the assumption that (a) if the URL is nil, access date  
> > will also be nil; and (b) a nil date will render nothing. The CSL 1.0  
> > specification calls for empty dates to render the “no date” term,  
> > hence the output above.
> 
> Hmm … I must have entirely missed this, or forgotten about it.
> 
> Before we move on, I have an uncomfortable question to ask:
> 
> I wonder if this is a good idea in general. Isn’t it better to require  
> style authors to code for adding “n.d.” in general?

You might be right. I don’t remember the details, but here’s a thread  
where this came up, back in September of last year:

> **[Other options for date (in press etc...)](https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/882/2/other-options-for-date-in-press-etc/)**
>
> Zotero doesn't recognise: 
> to appear 
> in press 
> submitted 
> in preparation etc.... 
> in the date field.

It looks like I missed the fact that nothing is possible with  
default-n.d. that isn’t also possible with default-empty + term.  
There was a lot of stuff going on around dates at that time, this may  
have come in with other proposals or changes.

Since we’re poised on the verge of a specification update, that  
sentence could be pulled out. Dialling the code out of the processor  
isn’t hard. So the option of backing away from this is there,  
depending on what everyone thinks.

Frank

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle1)\
**Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/empty-access-dates-in-csl-1-0/847/4 "2010-05-24T19:37:25Z")

</div>

> > I wonder if this is a good idea in general. Isn’t it better to require  
> > style authors to code for adding “n.d.” in general?
> 
> You might be right. I don’t remember the details, but here’s a thread  
> where this came up, back in September of last year:
> 
> [Other options for date (in press etc...) - Zotero Forums](http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/882/2/other-options-for-date-in-press-etc/)

It seems to have snuck in along some other stuff:

[http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg\_id=53208a5f0909291446u77695a8clfae8337a5fc1dfb%40mail.gmail.com](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=53208a5f0909291446u77695a8clfae8337a5fc1dfb%40mail.gmail.com)

I couldn’t find any discussion on it.

So the option of backing away from this is there,

> depending on what everyone thinks.

I support scrapping the feature.

RintzeOn Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Frank Bennett \<@Frank\_Bennett\>wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/empty-access-dates-in-csl-1-0/847/5 "2010-05-24T22:05:33Z")

</div>

> > > I wonder if this is a good idea in general. Isn’t it better to require  
> > > style authors to code for adding “n.d.” in general?
> > 
> > You might be right. I don’t remember the details, but here’s a thread  
> > where this came up, back in September of last year:
> > 
> > [Other options for date (in press etc...) - Zotero Forums](http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/882/2/other-options-for-date-in-press-etc/)
> 
> It seems to have snuck in along some other stuff:
> 
> [http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg\_id=53208a5f0909291446u77695a8clfae8337a5fc1dfb%40mail.gmail.com](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=53208a5f0909291446u77695a8clfae8337a5fc1dfb%40mail.gmail.com)
> 
> I couldn’t find any discussion on it.
> 
> > So the option of backing away from this is there,  
> > depending on what everyone thinks.
> 
> I support scrapping the feature.

I’ve adjusted the tests and fixed up the code of citeproc-js to  
eliminate the behavior.

Frank

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle1)\
**Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/empty-access-dates-in-csl-1-0/847/6 "2010-05-25T17:52:19Z")

</div>

Spec amended: [http://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-docs/changeset/8dfe31ed8555](http://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-docs/changeset/8dfe31ed8555)

RintzeOn Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Frank Bennett \<@Frank\_Bennett\>wrote: