# Proposal: CSL 1.0.0.1 (specification update)

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-csl-1-0-0-1-specification-update/846>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [May 17, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-csl-1-0-0-1-specification-update/846 "2010-05-17T16:54:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle1)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-csl-1-0-0-1-specification-update/846/1 "2010-05-17T16:54:40Z")

</div>

Dear all,

In the last two weeks some small changes to the CSL 1.0 specification have  
been made. Barring any further feedback/comments/objections/requests, I  
would like to release CSL 1.0.0.1 at the end of the week. As discussed  
earlier (  
[http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg\_name=s2j188351851005020129r10fad3e6yb9a37c8abc3d5a37%40mail.gmail.com](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=s2j188351851005020129r10fad3e6yb9a37c8abc3d5a37%40mail.gmail.com)),  
a 1.0.0.x release means that changes are restricted to the specification (we  
stick with the same old CSL 1.0 schema). To give people a chance to look  
things over, the proposed modifications concern:

the line-spacing and entry-spacing attributes:

> **[bdarcus / CSL Docs - 8b97e20](https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-docs/commits/8b97e20c3b7a)**
>
> More detailed descriptions of line-spacing and entry-spacing, as discussed on the citeproc-js Google group: http://groups.google.com/group/citeproc-js/browse\_thread/thread/81c8846852f95b0a

  
[http://groups.google.com/group/citeproc-js/browse\_thread/thread/81c8846852f95b0a](http://groups.google.com/group/citeproc-js/browse_thread/thread/81c8846852f95b0a)

the position condition:

> **[bdarcus / CSL Docs - 9e8d4e2](https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-docs/commits/9e8d4e2dfdc7)**
>
> Small update to the position condition.

  
[http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg\_name=w2xfbb7c5df1004241030kc7f2ca93xf01551d1468fe202%40mail.gmail.com](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=w2xfbb7c5df1004241030kc7f2ca93xf01551d1468fe202%40mail.gmail.com)

et-al abbreviation:

> **[bdarcus / CSL Docs - a9076d5](https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-docs/commits/a9076d57fe13)**
>
> Clearer description for the et-al-subsequent attributes

  

> **[bdarcus / CSL Docs - 7a2bc63](https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-docs/commits/7a2bc6389c2d)**
>
> Spec update: context-dependent prefix for the et-al term

  
[http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread\_name=AANLkTimi1JrskWVT7DCcJVZId-8evSW7G\_US9X\_3e\_iW%40mail.gmail.com&forum\_name=xbiblio-devel](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=AANLkTimi1JrskWVT7DCcJVZId-8evSW7G_US9X_3e_iW%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=xbiblio-devel)  
[http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg\_name=w2o53208a5f1004221537h50d8f04es5adbe0d3d9a35bb9%40mail.gmail.com](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=w2o53208a5f1004221537h50d8f04es5adbe0d3d9a35bb9%40mail.gmail.com)

the positioning of name suffixes:

> **[bdarcus / CSL Docs - a72b885](https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-docs/commits/a72b88502be9)**
>
> Spec update: following CMS rules for suffix handling
> 1) suffixes are dropped for names rendered with form="short"
> 2) when name-as-sort-order is active (inverted names), suffixes trail the other name-parts (delimited by a comma-space)

  
[http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg\_name=m2h53208a5f1005011652nefe620ado422fac3a3e687918%40mail.gmail.com](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=m2h53208a5f1005011652nefe620ado422fac3a3e687918%40mail.gmail.com)

the role of the match attribute on cs:if and cs:else-if

> **[bdarcus / CSL Docs - 8b0ef58](https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-docs/commits/8b0ef58210b4)**
>
> Spec update: description of cs:choose, behavior of the match attribute

  

> **[Specification: match attribute on cs:choose also acts between conditionals](https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-docs/issues/1/specification-match-attribute-on-cs-choose-also-acts-between)**
>
> In Zotero 2.0, the value of the match attribute on cs:if and cs:else-if elements not only acts within conditionals \[1\], but also between conditionals \[2\]. We probably wish to keep this behavior for CSL 1.0, but the between-conditional effect is not...

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Andrea\_Rossato1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@Andrea\_Rossato1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Andrea_Rossato1)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-csl-1-0-0-1-specification-update/846/2 "2010-05-17T17:30:50Z")

</div>

Hi Rintze,

sorry if I jump in a discussion that maybe already reached a consensus  
over the way of handling updates and releases, but I do really find it  
confusing the tagging of the language when only the documentation was  
actually amended.

Since there is a schema, the specification is not a normative document  
(_the_ language specification, so to speak). Any change should be  
reflected in the version number of the documentation itself, and not  
of the language. That specific use of version numbers (the four digit  
indicating a documentation change) seems not to be a common practice  
to me, and using it for a programming language - sort of - doesn’t  
seem to be the best marketing strategy.

As I said, this is just my reaction to the proposal: I didn’t entirely  
read the thread where you discussed about revision numbers (thread  
that you mentioned), so I may understand you already rejected this  
kind of argument in the light of other more compelling needs. If this  
is the case sorry for the noise.

Andrea

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle1)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-csl-1-0-0-1-specification-update/846/3 "2010-05-17T19:14:28Z")

</div>

For me, there are two major points:

- the schema logic does not (and can not) describe CSL in its entirety.  
There are multiple reasons for this, including limitations in RELAX NG and  
the wish to keep the schema readable. In CSL 0.8, some gaps were filled by  
annotations in the schema. For CSL 1.0, many schema annotations were  
scrapped in favor of the specification, which now forms an integral part of  
CSL. As such, the specification also carries a normative role.

- any versioning scheme of the schema and the specification should at least  
do two things: make it possible to a) indicate which version of the CSL  
schema corresponds with which version of the specification, and b) provide a  
clear way to indicate compatibility of CSL processors with specific versions  
of CSL (e.g. “citeproc-js 1.0.10 supports CSL 1.0.0.1”). As the schema and  
the specification are linked, I think its a given that we should keep the  
versions of both aligned. The tricky part is that sometimes (as for the  
proposed 1.0.0.1 update), changes are made to the specification (changes  
that affect how CSL processors should operate) that don’t require changes to  
the schema. Here I see two alternatives: either increment the version of the  
CSL schema whenever such specification updates are made (even though the  
schema in such a case doesn’t change), or reserve a digit solely for  
specification updates, which eliminates the need to retag the schema (my  
preference).

Of course, I’m open to suggestions on how we can do this differently.

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle1)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-csl-1-0-0-1-specification-update/846/4 "2010-05-30T16:43:54Z")

</div>

Today the update to the CSL 1.0 specification has been released:  
[http://citationstyles.org/2010/05/30/csl-1-0-specification-update-2010-05-30/](http://citationstyles.org/2010/05/30/csl-1-0-specification-update-2010-05-30/).  
Instead of a fourth digit (CSL 1.0.0.1), we decided to use  
date-versioning  
for specification updates. No changes have been made to the schema.

Rintze