I think it’s time to move this to the relevant lists:
Awhile back I made the decision (after soliciting comments) that all
CSL files would be language-specific. I did this because in the real
world of academic publishing (which is really the target) styles are
almost by definition language-specific. One does not typically use more
generic styles like APA or Chicago, but publisher or journal specific
variations, each of which are aimed at a particular target audience and
language.
Matthias Steffens has suggested I allow for optional
internationalization extensions, so that if a non-english user, say,
was using the “apa” style (defined in english), it would lookup the
strings in a separate file.
My worry about this approach is it adds needless complexity (flles are
more complex, no longer self-contained, etc.), for unclear benefit.
Yes, in some cases it will result in redundancy and duplication, but
does that really matter in this case?
I can get into specifics if needed, but thought I’d start with the
basic question of requirements/use case.
-
Do we care about localization within styles? Should a user be able
to define (and choose) a style independent of language? -
Is it important that style files be self-contained?
Anything else?
Bruce