# localization?

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/localization/138>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [July 5, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/localization/138 "2006-07-05T16:29:05Z")\
**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 5, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/localization/138/1 "2006-07-05T16:29:05Z")

</div>

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.

1. Do we care about localization within styles? Should a user be able  
to define (and choose) a style independent of language?

2. Is it important that style files be self-contained?

Anything else?

Bruce