take 1 on CSL mods

CSL Development
1

OK, here’s the outline of the current draft, where I’m trying to
incorporate Johan’s earlier comments with my interest in solving the
grouping issue. Comments inline:

       <title capitalize="title case"/>
     </reftype>
   </layout>
 </bibliography>
2

Better late than never, they say, so here are my suggestions:

1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I
am not so sure if it’s necessary to wrap and in a
group of their own .
2- Are you going to let the user specify the group for each citation?
So citation gets a group attribute? How do you handle citations that
appear twice, but get assigned (by mistake) to different groups?
(list them in both groups I would suggest)

Otherwise, it seems okay to me.

Regards,

Johan

3

Better late than never, they say, so here are my suggestions:

Yes, thanks!

1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I
am not so sure if it’s necessary to wrap and in a
group of their own .

I have no strong opinion on this. As I metioned before, there may be
some technical reasons why not to do this. Existing structure is:

terms
media
medium
genres
genre

In the schema, I can leave the order of those groups insignificant.
If I remove the wrappers, then I would have to enforce order; like:

medium
medium
genre
genre
etc.

As I said, I have no strong opinion, and the decision should be based
on how easy each it is for implementers.

OTOH, I want to trty to get the logic of CSL into OpenDocument, and
there there will be a premium on compactness.

2- Are you going to let the user specify the group for each citation?
So citation gets a group attribute? How do you handle citations that
appear twice, but get assigned (by mistake) to different groups?
(list them in both groups I would suggest)

No, where the groups aren’t automatic, they’d be specified in the
metadata with some sort of flag.

Bruce

4

Followup: can you imagine doing a GUi for this grouping config, where
one may have two levels of grouping? The example someone gave me was:

Primary Sources
Published
Unpublished
Secondary Sources

Bruce

5

Yes. An extra tab labelled “Groups” in this part:Op 26-nov-2005, om 21:58 heeft Bruce D’Arcus het volgende geschreven:

6

Ok, so long as you can imagine it, that’s great.

As you can see, I had some refinements today, and am also more
comfortable with it. That suggests calling the “groups” tag
"organization", unless someone has a better name.

BTW, as I’ve designed it, that structure would also be used to
specifiy the reference list heading even if there were no sections.
That’s among the reason I got rid of the “group” language.

You had requested this feature earlier also, so let me know what you think.

Bruce

7

1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I
am not so sure if it’s necessary to wrap and in a
group of their own .

I have no strong opinion on this. As I metioned before, there may be
some technical reasons why not to do this. Existing structure is:

terms
media
medium
genres
genre

In the schema, I can leave the order of those groups insignificant.
If I remove the wrappers, then I would have to enforce order; like:

medium
medium
genre
genre
etc.

I was actually more thinking:

media
medium
genres
genre

Grouping per term is nice, but no need to group the terms in its own
tag, right?

Bye,

Johan

8

Right.

Bruce