Let’s pull this into a new thread. So to answer my own questions to Fred:
- 'Macros, as the term itself implies, are best at generic
behavior": what kind of “generic behavior” might they be “best” at?
CSL macros are really good are describing how to format:
- dates
- titles
- publisher info
- names
Forget about the word “macro”: to describe this from the user
perspective, the user should be able to choose from lists of
pre-defined options how to format these components of a citation or
reference. I should be able to say “names should look like this” or
"dates like that". At some points, at least, it should be possible to
allow such selectors to create a new definition (macro) or edit an
existing one (?).
- “to enable users to easily make small and incremental changes
means that editing a style will tend toward explicit type definitions
and away from macros”: “small and incremental changes” in what
specific things? Variable order? Inter-variable punctuation?
Am not really sure, but would like some specific examples. I think the
details here matter a lot.
I also think, on the point that the approaches need not be mutually
exclusive, that my primary points are we
-
make macros available to (and perhaps even required in) layouts
-
privilege what is in effect the “generic” type, but perhaps still
allow type-specific exceptions (though exactly how best to do this
depends a lot on the “details” above). Maybe my “order” UI example,
for example, could have a little “+” tab that would add a new
template?
Bruce