>> I've put up a version using your proposed layout. At most
>> it should be five lines of field tags with the bottom tag
>> the bottom of the citation formats, and it'll wrap more if
>> This layout will work until someone adds a style with
>> citation-format="author", at least.
> There already is one, MLA, but it's currently labelled as
OK, well, that’s kind of why I had it the other way around. With five
format labels there’s not much wasted space the other way.
Is the label going to be fixed? Are there others?
> I noticed that all the styles have an updated timestamp of
> 12:16:08. Going forward, would probably be preferable to update the
> timestamp in the github repository after an commit, if we can
figure out to
> do that.
Wouldn't that be the other way around: that the index should draw the
updated value from the git repo (easy to do, and something more human
readable would be preferable), and that we should use a post hook ( as
w/the svn repo) to add that to the checked out files (also easy to
I just mean the cs:updated timestamp should reflect the time and date
of the last style edit.
Do you mean cs:updated, or do you mean the index timestamp? Remember,
the reason we advised leaving cs:updated blank in the styles was so that
authors wouldn’t feel compelled to update it on every update, which
would be a waste of their time. (I know there was the issue of whether
the styles still validated client-side…)
The problem with using smudge/clean filters in .gitattributes is that,
as far as I can tell, they require particular client-side programs
(e.g., Perl). A Windows user isn’t going to have Perl. So leaving it
blank seems best.
None of the date logic on the styles page changed, by the way. The
timestamps will be correct as the styles are updated. It’s just more
complicated to use the commit timestamp than to update the timestamp if
the style has changed, and so I didn’t bother.