# metadata
**URL:** https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/metadata/694
**Category:** CSL Development
**Created:** [July 19, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/metadata/694 "2009-07-19T21:14:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 2
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)
#### Post date: [July 19, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/metadata/694/1 "2009-07-19T21:14:39Z")
So continuing on revisiting current schema, cs:info:
Originally the scheme made much more about the type/class of a style;
so much so that the class attribute had values like “author-date” and
"number" and validation was conditioned on those.
Simon and I agree to change that and to shift a lot of that to generic
cs:category.
I wonder if we should revisit this. One possibility is to have
cs:category only really cover fields, and encode the type somewhere
else.
Thoughts?
Bruce
---
### Author:  [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)
#### Post date: [July 23, 2009, 10:43am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/metadata/694/2 "2009-07-23T10:43:49Z")
It probably depends a bit on how a CSL-style repository should
function. I could imagine a relatively sparse interface (see also
[http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4184/browsing-styles/](http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4184/browsing-styles/)), with a
focus on finding journal-specific styles, or one that also allows
users to find styles based on style format characteristics (like the
current Endnote style page,
[http://www.endnote.com/support/enstyles.asp](http://www.endnote.com/support/enstyles.asp)).
Rintze