# tricky problem, schema fixes/issues

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/tricky-problem-schema-fixes-issues/327>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [September 16, 2007, 1:54am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/tricky-problem-schema-fixes-issues/327 "2007-09-16T01:54:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<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:** [September 16, 2007, 1:54am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/tricky-problem-schema-fixes-issues/327/1 "2007-09-16T01:54:04Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Simon\_Kornblith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Simon\_Kornblith](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Simon_Kornblith)\
**Post date:** [September 16, 2007, 2:38am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/tricky-problem-schema-fixes-issues/327/2 "2007-09-16T02:38:52Z")

</div>

> 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

---

<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:** [September 16, 2007, 12:08pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/tricky-problem-schema-fixes-issues/327/3 "2007-09-16T12:08:16Z")

</div>

> > 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

---

<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:** [September 16, 2007, 12:10pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/tricky-problem-schema-fixes-issues/327/4 "2007-09-16T12:10:25Z")

</div>

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