"supra" redux (important)

So I thought I could support the Bluebook “supra” case with this simple
solution:

 <layout suffix="." delimiter="; ">
   <text macro="author"/>
   <choose>
     <if position="first">
       <text macro="title" prefix=", "/>
       <text variable="volume" prefix=", "/>
       <text variable="container-title" prefix=" "/>
       <text variable="page" prefix=" "/>
       <text variable="locator" prefix=" "/>
       <text macro="issuance" prefix=" "/>
       <text macro="access" prefix=", "/>
     </if>
     <else>
       <text value="supra" prefix=", "/>
       <text value="note" prefix=" "/>
       <text variable="citation-number" prefix=" "/>
     </else>
   </choose>
 </layout>

But it turns out not to be the case, since the "citation-number"
variable in fact refers to the citation reference, not the note, and so
breaks with multi-reference citations/notes.

This is kind of an awkward problem, actually. What now is called
"citation-number" is actually probably better called “reference-number”,
while “citation-number” actually makes sense for this case.

If I had my druthers, I’d make the changes suggested by the last
paragraph, but that would introduce another backward-compatible change.

Simon, are you fine with me changing this? Are the rest of you fine with
this?

Bruce

I need to sync the Ruby code with the latest version anyway, so it won’t
effect me particularly.

Regards,

Liam.

Liam Magee wrote:

I need to sync the Ruby code with the latest version anyway, so it won’t
effect me particularly.

OK. Actually, come to think of it, this is uglier than I thought, since
in calculating the number, the need to consider it in the context of
other (non-citation) notes.

For that reason, then, perhaps the solution should be to keep
"citation-number" as is, and instead add “citation-note-number”? Unless
I hear otherwise by, say, tonight, I’ll check this change in.

Suffice to say it will require a little work on the implementation end
to support it. But robust support for Bluebook could obviously be a
selling point.

Bruce

Yes, that’s what I would favor. Zotero won’t immediately support this,
since we’re working on other things at the moment, but when I get
around to updating the word processor integration I’ll keep this in
mind.

Simon