Sure, but I’d been under the vague impression that you were handling
this on the Zotero end? Isn’t the CSL variable you’re using to format
these “genre” (which I’m again wondering if we should change to
“type”?), and in that case isn’t Zotero providing the appropriate
string?
“Type” would certainly be more descriptive–I’m only worried that it
would be confusing to have both “type” for “item type” and “type” as
a variable.
My message was about citing “e-mail” and “instant message” item types
(and I still haven’t heard from Simon on whether what I was proposing
was even possible). Unfortunately, with letters we cannot populate
“genre” automatically because for letters the word “letter” is
omitted in a citation but included in a bibliographic reference. So
even if we could set “genre” as “letter” in Zotero, we would end up
with the following:
George Creel to Colonel House, letter, 25 September 1918, Edward M.
House Papers, Yale University Library.
when it should be:
George Creel to Colonel House, 25 September 1918, Edward M. House
Papers, Yale University Library.
In other words, in citations type of letter is only included if it’s
something other than a letter–a telegram, memo, etc.
The interview item type doesn’t have a “genre” field at all, it has
“medium.” I suppose Simon could still program Zotero to set “genre”
as “interview” (“medium” would be taken up by strings like
“transcript” or “tape”), but then wouldn’t CSL formatting for
“interview” be useless in all cases except within Zotero? It seems
more like a hack to me than a rule.
Just asking. The thing is, if we add these two, I worry we then
have to
add terms for any imaginable type, and formatting won’t work without
them. I can see arguments on either side really.
In theory, would it be possible to use something like <text
variable=“type” to display the name of the item type (i.e. letter,
interview, patent, etc.? Then we wouldn’t need terms either for
interview or letter, or any other terms that are the same as item
type names.
Elena