Elena,
I’ve looked on the list and the forums and still didn’t find the
solution to citing dates such as these in CSL:
Summer 1990
Fall-Winter 1989-1990
ca. 1204
1940?
[1940]
2-3 c. BCE
Is there a plan for these?
There’s been sporadic discussion about some of this in different
places, but not really.
Some ideas on the data encoding end in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/bibliographic-ontology-specification-group/browse_thread/thread/e2abf150a58530/55f9ac3cd34daa3f?lnk=gst&q=bc#55f9ac3cd34daa3f
This isn’t entirely disconnected from CSL, since formatting works best
with standard dates. It might suggest that implementations should know
which localized strings to add for BCE or ca. dates, but I don’t think
that needs to be in a CSL file. Do you?
The “other” dates stuff probably does need explicit support; maybe a
new attribute value on the date-part element?
Bruce
Elena,
I’ve looked on the list and the forums and still didn’t find the
solution to citing dates such as these in CSL:
Summer 1990
Fall-Winter 1989-1990
ca. 1204
1940?
[1940]
2-3 c. BCE
Is there a plan for these?
There’s been sporadic discussion about some of this in different
places, but not really.
Some ideas on the data encoding end in this thread:
<http://groups.google.com/group/bibliographic-ontology-specification-group/browse_thread/thread/e2abf150a58530/55f9ac3cd34daa3f?lnk=gst&q=bc#55f9ac3cd34daa3f
This isn’t entirely disconnected from CSL, since formatting works best
with standard dates. It might suggest that implementations should know
which localized strings to add for BCE or ca. dates, but I don’t think
that needs to be in a CSL file. Do you?
In the long run maybe localization can be done on the Zotero end, but
it seems a long ways away.
After discussing this with Dan S., it seems like the simplest way to
go for now is to set “is-date” to return “false” if the date field
contains any additional data (such as “ca.,” a hyphen, brackets,
question mark, etc.), and fallback to the whole string otherwise.
https://www.zotero.org/trac/ticket/888
Does this make sense?
For BCE dates, something will still need to be done for sorting, since
2 BCE should be sorted before 1 CE–I don’t think this works properly
right now.
Elena