# mods-enhanced

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/mods-enhanced/52>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [March 29, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/mods-enhanced/52 "2005-03-29T20:51:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus)\
**Post date:** [March 29, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/mods-enhanced/52/1 "2005-03-29T20:51:01Z")

</div>

Something more for the archives, to think about later:

Currently, citeproc creates an enhanced version of a mods record in  
memory. It includes additional virtual elements, like:

\<bib:key type=“suffix”\>b\</bib:key\>

I’m wondering if it would make it easier to integrate this sort of  
formatting into OOo or Word if that in-memory representation was a  
compliant mods record, such that it could be saved with the document?

I’m thinking about adding something like this to the mods:extension  
element:

\<bib:extended year=“1999” suffix=“b” position="23"  
noname-substitute=“Newsweek”/\>

Whether this is necessary will all depend on the details of how  
processing in Word or OOo would exactly work, of course.

Bruce