# Et-al-subsequent-use-last

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/et-al-subsequent-use-last/1537>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [May 28, 2019, 7:09pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/et-al-subsequent-use-last/1537 "2019-05-28T19:09:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bwiernik](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/bwiernik/32/438_2.png) [@bwiernik](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/bwiernik)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 7:09pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/et-al-subsequent-use-last/1537/1 "2019-05-28T19:09:06Z")

</div>

`et-al-min` and `et-al-use-first` both have `subsequent` forms. `et-al-use-last` does not. It applies to both first and subsequent citations. I’m trying to write a footnote form of APA that a Zotero user requested for a journal. Like Chicago (full note), the full bibliography (which uses `et-al-use-last="true"`) should be used for first citations, and a short form (which uses `et-al-use-last="false"`) should be used on subsequent. For now, my plan is to just use `et-al-use-last="false"` for both forms, but would we consider adding an `et-al-subsequent-use-last` attribute?

Edit: Actually, I realize that the spec seems to be ambiguous on this point, and citeproc-js implements it by only applying `et-al-use-last` to the first (not subsequent) citations. Is that something that should be made more explicit?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sebastian\_Karcher](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/sebastian_karcher/32/176_2.png) [@Sebastian\_Karcher](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Sebastian_Karcher)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/et-al-subsequent-use-last/1537/2 "2019-05-28T21:22:46Z")

</div>

I’d be reluctant to add a new attribute for something that has only ever been requested for a custom style and even that only once.  
But including the current citeproc-js behavior into the specs seems fine to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bwiernik](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/bwiernik/32/438_2.png) [@bwiernik](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/bwiernik)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 9:33pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/et-al-subsequent-use-last/1537/3 "2019-05-28T21:33:35Z")

</div>

That sounds good to me.