So someone on the Zotero forums reminded me that we need to address
the grouped list support that we earlier had, but which dropped out in
the schema revision.
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/2341/looking-for-a-dissertationstyle-with-special-bibliography
In that support, cs:bibliography had a cs:list child. Here’s the
schema fragment:
Configures the formatting for headings, and optional sectioning.
div {
cs-list =
element cs:list {
element cs:heading {
element cs:text {
attribute term-name {
“references” | “works cited” | “bibliography”
}
}?
},
Section*
}
## Handles grouping in reference lists.
Section =
element section {
Section-group-options,
cs-list.heading,
(cs-list.type*
> element subsection {
Section-group-options, cs-list.heading, cs-list.type*
}+)
}
## Section-group-options
div {
## The grouping logic is such that if a reference is not included
## in a specified group, then it is understood to be a part of a
## default group. If, for example, one configures a "not cited"
## section, then all cited references are part of a default group.
Section-group-options =
## Criterion to use for grouping. The "named group" option
## is a user or application selectable category that is not
## covered by the other options.
attribute group-by {
"author" | "type" | "notcited" | "year" | "named group"
},
## Where named group is used, the name to group on.
(attribute group-name { text }
>
## Where type group is used, the type to group on.
attribute group-type { cs-types.optional_list })?
}
cs-list.type =
element cs:type {
attribute name { text }
}
cs-list.heading =
element heading {
attribute type { "author" | "year" }
}
}
No one ever implemented it (me included), but I think the basic design
was sound.
Is there any reason I should not just add it as is (adapted to new
schema of course)?
I suppose I’d want to look at keeping it simple so that it’d be easy
to implement in a GUI, but beyond that I can’t see any problems.
Thoughts?
Bruce