See this thread:
Read through the thread. It looks like at that stage the meaning of
"locator" and “point-locator” was in flux. Currently, “locator” is
effectively the name for a special variable consisting of exactly with
two elements: a label part associated with a locale term; and a string
supplied by the user. The first is called using the label element,
the second using the text element, as Rintze said earlier. If that
will change, I’ll need to know the structure of the data and the CSL
markup, and have an example or two of input and matching output. I’ll
work with whatever you decide.
This is an ugly detail of CSL, and it’s not so much that it’s an
oversight, but that it’s just kind of hard to balance the concerns.
To understand some of the historical context of this wrinkle, you can
look back at an earlier version of the schema:
At line 787, you’ll see we used to have a cs:locator element, which
had a bit of magic associated with it that avoided people having to
write really complicated stuff just to get the locators to print
So the current variable was a product of an effort to simplify CSL
where possible. It essentially changed the variable element to an
With that out of the way, we need to clear up two details:
- The more recent thread was just confusion about what "locator"
referred to: the details of the source per se, or of its citation. We
have two options.
A. remove “point-locator” and update the documentation to make clear
that “locator” is only for use in the citation, and refers to the
point citation details (not the source).
B. remove “locator” and update the existing CSL styles to use that
It seems to me option A is preferable.
- processing of 1:
I think we have a few options:
A. we define the order of printing, so that a style author could just do:
<cs:text variable=“locator” delimiter=", "/>
B. we force the style author to define the ordering by having to list
<cs:text variable=“chapter page” delimiter=", "/>
If we choose B, then we don’t need 1 above at all (and we need to
update all the styles).
There’s an issue with my examples, though: they don’t include the
labels. I guess in that case we’d need to use a group?