Design question.
A lot of styles have distinctions between first and subsequent
citations. This is particularly common in note-based styles, where the
first is the full reference, and the rest short forms.
But even in-text styles have different et al rules for first and
subsequent.
So while I’m redoing the schema, I might as well revisit this.
Here is what I’m looking at:
A default “item” element, and an optional "item/@type=“subsequent”.
E.g.:
...
</item>
Is that fine?
What about the et al rules? Right now they are defined in their own
element apart from the templates (because they are sort of a separate
issue).
Bruce
Design question.
A lot of styles have distinctions between first and subsequent
citations. This is particularly common in note-based styles, where the
first is the full reference, and the rest short forms.
But even in-text styles have different et al rules for first and
subsequent.
So while I’m redoing the schema, I might as well revisit this.
Here is what I’m looking at:
A default “item” element, and an optional "item/@type=“subsequent”.
E.g.:
...
</item>
Is that fine?
Seems fine to me.
What about the et al rules? Right now they are defined in their own
element apart from the templates (because they are sort of a separate
issue).
I think that this will work, because it would seem unlikely that a style
would define different et al rules for different reference types.
Simon
Just to be clear, I’m not averse to figuring out a more general
solution for sorting and substitution. I just think if we do that, it
ought to not make the templating more complicated, and so yes, would
happen in separate structures.
Bruce