How use ibid with new schema?

Can everyone show me how use position=“ibid” with new schema?
What’s wrong with that:

I try to make a style with the new schema, but I can’t. Where the
Chicago without bibliography style (new schema) will be available for
Thank you,

It seems like you’re doing it right. I think we’ll have to wait on
Simon to comment, since this was a change he made. It could be a bug
in his code.

It might just be me, but I do find it a little odd to call “ibid” a
"position", though.

Also, Mihai, one thing I’d point out to you is that you’re template
there is awfully long, and it looks like there might be a lot of
duplication. The new schema allows you to make things more compact
typically, and it’s good to take advantage of that when you can.

As for a new version of Chicago, I don’t know. Simon offered to write
some code to convert old styles to new, but hasn’t had time. I do
think it would be a good idea for people to convert the old styles to
test the schema, but I just don’t have much time these days.


Thank you very much, Bruce,
and succes!

There probably is a bug in my code (which will be fixed as soon as I
commit my latest patch to SVN), but, at least as everything is
currently implemented, position=“subsequent” is also true if
position=“ibid” is true. Thus, the section
should come before .

If you have an idea for making this more intuitive, please let me know.


Simon Kornblith wrote:

If you have an idea for making this more intuitive, please let me know.

In English, we’d say:

  • if first, then x
  • else
    • if ibid y
    • else z

So translating that into the current draft, I would assume:

... ... ...


If I was going to change the encoding, it would be to add something like
"condition". E.g. . Not sure that’s necessary though.


I’ve made a test: with APA style, I’ve modified the code for citation
like bellow. The result: ibid doesn’t work at all!!!
Bruce, have you tested ibid with a style? I think it doesn’t work with
new schema…
Here is my code: