From the look of things, there are about three options left to
implement in citeproc-js to turn the corner on the existing feature
set. First up is our friend in the subject line.
The schema comment has this:
substitutes subsequent recurrences of an author for a given string
Visualizing how this would look in a bibliography, I’m guessing that
this substitution would normally be used to sub in a string of dashes
or something for the authors’ names when the same names are repeated.
Before implementing it, I’d like to confirm a few details. Is it
correct to assume that …
(1) Substitution should be based on a match of author namesets (not
individual author names), and the substitution series should break if
there is any difference in the underlying author names – even if the
rendered form is the same due to the operation of et al.
(2) The schema comment should be interpreted literally to mean
“authors” – substitution does not apply to editors substituted in at
the same position.
If either of these assumptions is incorrect, please let me know.
Frank
From the look of things, there are about three options left to
implement in citeproc-js to turn the corner on the existing feature
set. First up is our friend in the subject line.
The schema comment has this:
substitutes subsequent recurrences of an author for a given string
Visualizing how this would look in a bibliography, I’m guessing that
this substitution would normally be used to sub in a string of dashes
or something for the authors’ names when the same names are repeated.
Correct.
Given this primary use case, I’d say …
Before implementing it, I’d like to confirm a few details. Is it
correct to assume that …
(1) Substitution should be based on a match of author namesets (not
individual author names), and the substitution series should break if
there is any difference in the underlying author names – even if the
rendered form is the same due to the operation of et al.
Yes.
(2) The schema comment should be interpreted literally to mean
“authors” – substitution does not apply to editors substituted in at
the same position.
No; substitution (of anything) applies. Remember the use case: this is
effectively a cheap way to handle “author” grouping.*
Bruce
- though see that Japanese religious journal for ways users have tried
to extend this.
Okay, that makes sense. How is this for logic: “The substitution
affects only the first name variable to be rendered in a bib entry,
and will occur when the value of that variable matches the first name
variable rendered in the preceding bib entry.”
If that’s okay, the next question is whether or not the styling of the
names element should be applied to the substitution string. If the
author element is in boldface, for example, should the substituted
text string also be bold?
Frank
(2) The schema comment should be interpreted literally to mean
“authors” – substitution does not apply to editors substituted in at
the same position.
No; substitution (of anything) applies. Remember the use case: this is
effectively a cheap way to handle “author” grouping.*
Okay, that makes sense. How is this for logic: “The substitution
affects only the first name variable to be rendered in a bib entry,
and will occur when the value of that variable matches the first name
variable rendered in the preceding bib entry.”
I don’t think that’s right. Consider that the following are different
“authors” from a CSL processing perspective:
“Doe, Jane and John Smith”
“Doe, Jane”
“Doe, Jane, John Smith and Mary Able”
If that’s okay, the next question is whether or not the styling of the
names element should be applied to the substitution string.
Good question. But for sanity’s sake, no.
If the author element is in boldface, for example, should the substituted
text string also be bold?
Bruce
(2) The schema comment should be interpreted literally to mean
“authors” – substitution does not apply to editors substituted in at
the same position.
No; substitution (of anything) applies. Remember the use case: this is
effectively a cheap way to handle “author” grouping.*
Okay, that makes sense. How is this for logic: “The substitution
affects only the first name variable to be rendered in a bib entry,
and will occur when the value of that variable matches the first name
variable rendered in the preceding bib entry.”
I don’t think that’s right. Consider that the following are different
“authors” from a CSL processing perspective:
“Doe, Jane and John Smith”
“Doe, Jane”
“Doe, Jane, John Smith and Mary Able”
In this case, substitution should occur, or should not?
If that’s okay, the next question is whether or not the styling of the
names element should be applied to the substitution string.
Good question. But for sanity’s sake, no.
When inline markup is implemented it would be simple to override in
the style, though, since boldface is a flipflop.
Only if there was more than one entry from one of those three
"authors". So assuming those are the only three, than not.
The APA style is the classic one that needs this feature.
Bruce
(2) The schema comment should be interpreted literally to mean
“authors” – substitution does not apply to editors substituted in at
the same position.
No; substitution (of anything) applies. Remember the use case: this is
effectively a cheap way to handle “author” grouping.*
Okay, that makes sense. How is this for logic: “The substitution
affects only the first name variable to be rendered in a bib entry,
and will occur when the value of that variable matches the first name
variable rendered in the preceding bib entry.”
I don’t think that’s right. Consider that the following are different
“authors” from a CSL processing perspective:
“Doe, Jane and John Smith”
“Doe, Jane”
“Doe, Jane, John Smith and Mary Able”
In this case, substitution should occur, or should not?
Only if there was more than one entry from one of those three
“authors”. So assuming those are the only three, than not.
The APA style is the classic one that needs this feature.
Okay. In that case, that’s what I meant by “name variable”
(variable=“author”, which includes the names of multiple authoring
individuals or institutions as a set). The substitution would occur
only if all individual names in the set match.
Sorry; yes. I think the confusion was the different meanings of
"substitution" here.
I was simply meaning that if you have a list of unattributed articles
from a particular newspaper, and the author macro substitutes the
title, then that could still qualify for this particular substitution.
Times of Some Place …
——— …
——— …
Been a long day …
Bruce
Sorry, to follow that up, if there were two variables given to the
names element (variable=“author editor”), the substitution would only
be done for the first (author). This would mean that the following
would not result in substitution:
Mary Able and Robert Brown
Mary Able and Robert Brown [sub], Mary Able and Robert Brown (eds.) [no sub]
How should this case be handled?
John Doe and Jane Roe
John Doe and Jane Roe (eds.) [no sub?]
Frank
Okay. In that case, that’s what I meant by “name variable”
(variable=“author”, which includes the names of multiple authoring
individuals or institutions as a set). The substitution would occur
only if all individual names in the set match.
Sorry; yes. I think the confusion was the different meanings of
“substitution” here.
I was simply meaning that if you have a list of unattributed articles
from a particular newspaper, and the author macro substitutes the
title, then that could still qualify for this particular substitution.
Times of Some Place …
——— …
——— …
Great, this is becoming clear. So both the variable name itself and
the variable content should match. If both of those conditions are
satisfied, substitute.
?
Sorry for the long string of messages here. I’ve now realized
something further, that I should file in the list archives to tie this
off. This is in fact too complicated to handle at the variable level
anyway – you can have group elements in a substitute span, with
arbitrary content. So the only way to handle this is to render the
first names element in the cite and track the string it produces.
Andrea mentioned that citeproc-hs is able to render any element
independently. Happily, citeproc-js is (now) able to do (pretty much)
the same thing. So I think I’m all set to finish off this option when
I have a chance to do the coding.
Another, related, behavior we ought to settle:
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4775/csl-how-to-omit-subsequentauthor-in-bibliography/
What should happen with “subsequent-author-substitute” = “”?
In some ways, if we could represent this style, we’d be done 
http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/publications.htm
Bruce
Another, related, behavior we ought to settle:
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4775/csl-how-to-omit-subsequentauthor-in-bibliography/
What should happen with “subsequent-author-substitute” = “”?
Nice one! Should cause no harm for that to for the author to empty,
which should produce the desired result.
In some ways, if we could represent this style, we’d be done 
http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/publications.htm
They seem to have changed their site, there doesn’t seem to be a
bibliography under that link anymore. (Problem solved! 
Another, related, behavior we ought to settle:
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4775/csl-how-to-omit-subsequentauthor-in-bibliography/
What should happen with “subsequent-author-substitute” = “”?
Nice one! Should cause no harm for that to for the author to empty,
which should produce the desired result.
Are we comfortable with that? It does seems reasonable, but a little awkward.
In some ways, if we could represent this style, we’d be done
http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/publications.htm
They seem to have changed their site, there doesn’t seem to be a
bibliography under that link anymore. (Problem solved!
There are two things in these styles:
-
the grouping-by-author thing (which can be simulated with this
option, assuming the above behavior)
-
names/titles in other scripts (in this case, Kanji)
I’d like to think we need both for 1.0.
Bruce
Another, related, behavior we ought to settle:
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4775/csl-how-to-omit-subsequentauthor-in-bibliography/
What should happen with “subsequent-author-substitute” = “”?
Nice one! Should cause no harm for that to for the author to empty,
which should produce the desired result.
Are we comfortable with that? It does seems reasonable, but a little awkward.
In some ways, if we could represent this style, we’d be done
http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/publications.htm
They seem to have changed their site, there doesn’t seem to be a
bibliography under that link anymore. (Problem solved!
There are two things in these styles:
-
the grouping-by-author thing (which can be simulated with this
option, assuming the above behavior)
-
names/titles in other scripts (in this case, Kanji)
I’d like to think we need both for 1.0.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be flip. It looks like the site uses frames,
and the headline URL points to the top page of the publications area
by default. I’ve clicked around a little, but can’t seem to find the
page that goes with your comment. Do you have the link path to hand?
(Aside: Frames are very popular in this country. I will reserve
further comment. There might be children listening.)
Frank
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be flip.
No problem at all.
It looks like the site uses frames,
and the headline URL points to the top page of the publications area
by default. I’ve clicked around a little, but can’t seem to find the
page that goes with your comment. Do you have the link path to hand?
I just looked at examples articles.
Bruce
Another, related, behavior we ought to settle:
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4775/csl-how-to-omit-subsequentauthor-in-bibliography/
What should happen with “subsequent-author-substitute” = “”?
Nice one! Should cause no harm for that to for the author to empty,
which should produce the desired result.
Are we comfortable with that? It does seems reasonable, but a little awkward.
I don’t think it will cause confusion. I got this running yesterday,
and implemented it in this way.
I mean for users (style authors). For example, how would you deal with
this in a GUI?
Bruce
Another, related, behavior we ought to settle:
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4775/csl-how-to-omit-subsequentauthor-in-bibliography/
What should happen with “subsequent-author-substitute” = “”?
Nice one! Should cause no harm for that to for the author to empty,
which should produce the desired result.
Are we comfortable with that? It does seems reasonable, but a little awkward.
I don’t think it will cause confusion. I got this running yesterday,
and implemented it in this way.
I mean for users (style authors). For example, how would you deal with
this in a GUI?
I’m not sure what the difficulties would be, but I don’t really know
how a GUI would work. If it runs sample input through the processor
to preview rendered results, that should be no problem. For
configuration options, wouldn’t it just be an option with arguments
like any other?