tricky problem, schema fixes/issues

First, Simon, I just found and I fixed what I think were a few bugs in
the schema. Can you check that they make sense? IIRC, I primarily made
some of the attributes on cs:label optional.

The other one – which has bigger implications – is that I was having
validation problems with non-tokenized type values like "legal case."
Changing that to “legal_case” resolved it. Shall we change all fo them?

Also, I’m finally working again on the Bluebook law review style, and
am having some issues with accommodating some of its weirder
requirements.

Authors are represented as normal, except with books, where they are
represented in small caps.

The problem I’m running into is where to configure the conditional. The
combination of the macros, the substitution behavior, and the fallback
logic makes it a little tricky. Do we need to allow cs:choose as a
child of cs:names?

Bruce

First, Simon, I just found and I fixed what I think were a few bugs in
the schema. Can you check that they make sense? IIRC, I primarily made
some of the attributes on cs:label optional.

Yes, include-period should be optional, but what would with
no variable attribute do outside of (where it is defined
separately, as name-label)?

The other one – which has bigger implications – is that I was having
validation problems with non-tokenized type values like "legal case."
Changing that to “legal_case” resolved it. Shall we change all fo
them?

Yes, I think so.

Also, I’m finally working again on the Bluebook law review style, and
am having some issues with accommodating some of its weirder
requirements.

Authors are represented as normal, except with books, where they are
represented in small caps.

The problem I’m running into is where to configure the conditional.
The
combination of the macros, the substitution behavior, and the fallback
logic makes it a little tricky. Do we need to allow cs:choose as a
child of cs:names?

I’d say this is a fringe case and we should just replicate the
tag inside a tag, since AFAIK there aren’t many
styles where this takes place. But, if you really think we need it,
we could allow as a child of .

Simon

First, Simon, I just found and I fixed what I think were a few bugs in
the schema. Can you check that they make sense? IIRC, I primarily made
some of the attributes on cs:label optional.

Yes, include-period should be optional, but what would with
no variable attribute do outside of (where it is defined
separately, as name-label)?

I missed the cs:name-label element. That’s new? If yes, why did you
add it? Because more logical, or because of valldation?

I’d say this is a fringe case and we should just replicate the
tag inside a tag, since AFAIK there aren’t many
styles where this takes place. But, if you really think we need it,
we could allow as a child of .

This is definitely one of those insane fringe cases. Just to show the
implications of not allowing choose within the name, you’d get:

Note other bug in the schema: I need not put any attributes on the
cs:if element. I suggest we change that to say one must put at least
one of the choice of attributes.

Alternative would be:

Bruce

Just to clear, I don’t have a real strong opinion. The primary
criterion should be clarity and consistency. If adding choose to names
works at that level, then we should add it. If not, then a little
extra verbosity for stupid rules like this isn’t a big problem.

Bruce