# \[IMPORTANT\] comments needed on grouping

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/important-comments-needed-on-grouping/699>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [July 27, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/important-comments-needed-on-grouping/699 "2009-07-27T23:58:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<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:** [July 27, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/important-comments-needed-on-grouping/699/1 "2009-07-27T23:58:46Z")

</div>

re: this item:

[https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=678021&aid=2180714&group\_id=117435](https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=678021&aid=2180714&group_id=117435)

My current thinking is that CSL does not need to explicitly support  
grouped bib sections, but that CSL implementations should (it’s an  
important feature for many).

But to completely leave this out of the CSL syntax would presume the  
following, I think:

Let’s presume an API with two contexts: “citation” and "bibliography.“  
Each of these are lists of items. We’ll call the bibliographic items  
"references.”

1. every “reference” may have an optional “group” token

2. ordering of the groups in the list layout is determined outside of  
CSL, as are the headings associated with each group

3. we don’t care about any automatically-generated sectioning (by  
year, author, etc.)

If people agree with my analysis, I’ll close the ticket. But if I do,  
should we include anything about this in the spec?

If people don’t agree, then we need to consider adding back syntax to  
configure that stuff.

Bruce