So am totally not following this. Can someone boil down the implications for the 1.0.1 discussion?
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Sylvester Keil <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On Apr 29, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Frank Bennett wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Sylvester Keil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> >>> On Apr 28, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Rintze Zelle wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Bruce D'Arcus <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> You're saying you want to fold in a backward-incompatible feature >>>> addition with a bug fix release? >>>> >>>> In this context, backward-compatibility is the ability of a CSL 1.0.1 >>>> processor to handle CSL 1.0 styles and locales, right? Then only the bug >>>> fix is backward-incompatible (as defining gender-specific ordinals in the >>>> CSL locales will always be optional). >>> >>> Because you brought up ordinals, I would just like to add that I think >>> Rintze is absolutely right in that including the gender support for locales >>> will not lead to issues for CSL 1.0 processor processing 1.0 locales. >>> Furthermore, it is not difficult for 1.0.1 processors to handle 1.0 >>> locales; judging from some of the citeproc-tests I believe that the >>> proposal is implemented in citeproc-js already? I definitely and to >>> implement gender support for some of the tests to pass. >>> >>> However, there was another issue I had to address in citeproc-ruby. For >>> illustrations purposes, you can take a look at the test cases here: >>> >>> https://github.com/inukshuk/citeproc-ruby/blob/master/spec/csl/locale_spec.rb >>> >>> The relevant tests are for '#ordinalize', lines 85 through 159. As you can >>> see on lines 92 and 100, I would expect 3 to become 3rd, 13 to become >>> 13th, 23 to become 23rd. This does not work with CSL 1.0 because I can only >>> specify the ordinals 1-4 (13 would probably become 13rd here). What's more, >>> I would expect that in different languages all kinds of exceptions are >>> possible which lead to similar problems. >>> >>> My implementation currently addresses this as follows: >>> >>> Given a a number X to ordinalize, I check the locales, following the normal >>> prioritization, for a definition of X; if X is not defined, the process is >>> repeated for Y = X % mod where mod currently starts at 100 and is divided >>> by 10 in every consecutive step. Therefore, to ordinalize 1155 I would try >>> to look up the following terms until there is a match: >>> >>> ordinal-1155 >>> ordinal-55 >>> ordinal-05 >>> ordinal-00 >>> >>> To ordinalize 113 the look-up would be for: >>> >>> ordinal-113 >>> ordinal-13 >>> ordinal-03 >>> ordinal-00 >>> >>> So, as you can see, for English, I would have to define the following >>> minimal set of ordinals to cover all cases (that I can think of right now): >>> >>> ordinal-00 = 'th' >>> ordinal-01 = 'st' >>> ordinal-02 = 'nd' >>> ordinal-03 = 'rd' >>> ordinal-11 = 'th' >>> ordinal-12 = 'th' >>> ordinal-13 = 'th' >>> >>> In the two examples above 1155 becomes 1155th and 113 becomes 113th, >>> whereas using a CSL 1.0 locale the algorithm would return 1155th and 113rd >>> which is wrong but consistent, I think, with CSL 1.0 expectations. That is >>> to say, allowing locales to define any number as an ordinal term should not >>> alter the behaviour of CSL 1.0 processors at all; furthermore, the results >>> of a processor using the above algorithm when using 1.0 locales is >>> consistent with current implementations, too. >> >> Sylvester, >> >> Nice. So the idea is to use a fixed algorithm, and to control it by >> defining match-points in the locale files that will yield that right >> result for the language? This sounds very interesting. > > Exactly. This way, each locale can decide which match-points to define; for > example, German would only have to define ordinal-00 = '.'; we could include > long-forms in this process, too, so that it is up to each locale which > long-forms to define. The algorithm is fixed in the sense, that it assumes > the number system uses a base 10; perhaps we could allow for a locale to > specify the modulus too? > > Sylvester > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) > > iEYEARECAAYFAk26iR4ACgkQh4kzvOqyWhAwZgCeO8Y2Dvjc5ivBndCbDAMNjxpF > DsAAoMgDf9OQzOV8Mgu2Iyckit16zjEG > =LWOE > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software > The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network > management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial > acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd > _______________________________________________ > xbiblio-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd _______________________________________________ xbiblio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
