On Tuesday 20 June 2006 9:21 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > On further thought, I wonder if we shouldn't make things a little > easier and just do: > > <cite:biblioref cite:key="doe99a" cite:style="year"> > <cite:detail cite:units="pages" cite:value="23-24"/> > </cite:biblioref> > > ... or even: > > <cite:biblioref cite:key="doe99a" cite:style="year" > cite:pages="23-24"/> > > The latter would require a standard list of attributes there, though, > which might be a little problematic.
If detail-units really means location-units I think it may be worth preserving. I think we need a location data level even when we have not yet thought up all the location types. Wouldn't it make it easier to process a given style - Author, (publishing details), location If location-units are an either a separate list (possibly user extensible) or at least gathered in one place in the code. It terms of program maintenance if would be nicer to add LP record=A/B side: Track# to the types of locations than to just add in at 'the right place' in the CSL code. David ------------------- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
