From comments posted by Brecht Machiels.
Brecht writes:
- Which values are allowed for the “page” input field? I see multiple
ranges can also be specified. I think the CSL spec should, in general,
also define the format of the input fields. Personally, I would opt for a
structured format (like the date fields) as opposed to a string-format
(the page field). Individual CSL processors can still convert a
string-formatted field to the structured data. This would require changes
to the tests.
There is a similar issue with the locator field (and, in MLZ/CSL-m,
the section field on legal item types). Configured for MLZ,
citeproc-js currently parses out the content of all three (page,
section, locator), to extract label overrides and embedded labels,
where appropriate to combine locator and section (a hard-coded
pinpoint available on things like statute items), and to suss out
whether the top-level label should or should not be pluralized.
The logic works, and it addresses some show-stopping issues affecting
legal resources (i.e. label overrides and embedded labels): but it is
completely off-specification.
If there is a move to specify structured input for these fields, I can
provide use cases from the legal side. It would be good to have them
covered in the specification, although it would take a fair amount of
work to pin the behaviour down.
Frank