# "supra" redux (important)

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/supra-redux-important/457>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [March 25, 2008, 2:37am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/supra-redux-important/457 "2008-03-25T02:37:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 25, 2008, 2:37am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/supra-redux-important/457/1 "2008-03-25T02:37:50Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Liam\_Magee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Liam\_Magee](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Liam_Magee)\
**Post date:** [March 25, 2008, 6:18am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/supra-redux-important/457/2 "2008-03-25T06:18:02Z")

</div>

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

Regards,

Liam.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 25, 2008, 12:49pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/supra-redux-important/457/3 "2008-03-25T12:49:07Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Simon\_Kornblith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Simon\_Kornblith](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Simon_Kornblith)\
**Post date:** [March 26, 2008, 2:50pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/supra-redux-important/457/4 "2008-03-26T14:50:43Z")

</div>

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