# Syntactic Sugar for "Long Ordinals" (3-\>third)

**URL:** https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/syntactic-sugar-for-long-ordinals-3-third/511
**Category:** CSL Development
**Created:** [October 5, 2008, 2:47am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/syntactic-sugar-for-long-ordinals-3-third/511 "2008-10-05T02:47:42Z")
**Posts on this page:** 2
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Richard\_Karnesky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba8739/32.png) [@Richard\_Karnesky](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Richard_Karnesky)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2008, 2:47am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/syntactic-sugar-for-long-ordinals-3-third/511/1 "2008-10-05T02:47:42Z")

</div>

Back in November, in the “Wishlist for the style schema” thread, we had  
talked about about edition numbers & Simon asked:

> Are there any styles that require “third” versus “3rd”?

‘Scripta Materialia’ uses “third ed.” in their single example of  
formatting a citation with an edition specified.

Did we ever decide on how this “long ordinal” form would be handled?

–Rick

---

<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: [October 5, 2008, 3:26pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/syntactic-sugar-for-long-ordinals-3-third/511/2 "2008-10-05T15:26:32Z")

</div>

I don’t recall this ever coming up, but I presume it would be solved  
by adding a new “form” attribute value to cs:number.