If there aren’t any complaints, I’d like to:
- rename the “is-numeric” conditional to “numeric” for consistency. The
"is-date" conditional has been removed from CSL 1.0, and none of the other
conditional attributes (“type”, “variable”, “uncertain-date”, “position”)
have “is-” prepended.
- move the “original-publisher” variable from cs-names to cs-variables, and
remove “publisher” from cs-names (“publisher” is currently part of both
cs-names and cs-variables). Hierarchical name support has been pushed to CSL
1.1 (
http://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-schema/issue/15/move-publisher-to-cs-names),
so for CSL 1.0 there won’t be any benefit of using cs:names over
cs:text
to display the contents of either variable. Once hierarchical name support
has been added we can move both variables (back) to cs-names, but that is of
later concern.
Rintze
If there aren’t any complaints, I’d like to:
- rename the “is-numeric” conditional to “numeric” for consistency. The
“is-date” conditional has been removed from CSL 1.0, and none of the other
conditional attributes (“type”, “variable”, “uncertain-date”, “position”)
have “is-” prepended.
But you’re comparing apples and oranges; aren’t you? The “is-numeric”
attribute is testing the value of a variable.
- move the “original-publisher” variable from cs-names to cs-variables, and
remove “publisher” from cs-names (“publisher” is currently part of both
cs-names and cs-variables). Hierarchical name support has been pushed to CSL
1.1 (
http://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-schema/issue/15/move-publisher-to-cs-names
), so for CSL 1.0 there won’t be any benefit of using cs:names over cs:text
to display the contents of either variable. Once hierarchical name support
has been added we can move both variables (back) to cs-names, but that is of
later concern.
Seems reasonable.
Bruce
Doesn’t the same hold for “variable” (you’re testing for a non-empty value)
and (the newly added) “uncertain-date”.
Rintze
Well, the baseline shouldn’t be a new attribute; it’s equally
reasonable to suggest that ought to be changed to “is-uncertain-date.”
For me, the main thing is just that the markup is fairly
self-explanatory. I worry a little that removing the “is” prefix may
negatively impact that (testing for the presence of a variable seems
different to me), but don’t have a really strong opinion on it.
Bruce
Is it okay for me to add a companion “original-publisher-place” variable
when I make this change? I think it would increase the value of having
"original-publisher" around.
Rintze
- move the “original-publisher” variable from cs-names to cs-variables,
and
remove “publisher” from cs-names (“publisher” is currently part of both
cs-names and cs-variables). Hierarchical name support has been pushed to
CSL
1.1 (
http://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-schema/issue/15/move-publisher-to-cs-names
), so for CSL 1.0 there won’t be any benefit of using cs:names over
cs:text
to display the contents of either variable. Once hierarchical name
support
has been added we can move both variables (back) to cs-names, but that
is of
later concern.
Seems reasonable.
Is it okay for me to add a companion “original-publisher-place” variable
when I make this change? I think it would increase the value of having
“original-publisher” around.
I would support this (adding original-publisher-place). It seems good
policy to keep the publisher data aligned.
Yes. OTOH, nobody can support it now.
Bruce
What exactly do you mean with the latter statement? I’m not following.
Rintze
Yeah, I wasn’t very clear. I just mean that none of the CSL
applications currently support a notion of an original publisher.
Bruce
Right. Well, I committed the changes:
Renaming uncertain-date to is-uncertain-date for consistency with is-numeric
Removed “publisher” from cs-names, moved “original-publisher” from cs-names
to cs-variables and added “original-publisher-place” variable to
cs-variables.
Rintze