On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:53 PM, andrea rossato <[email protected]> wrote: > Frank Bennett <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:21 AM, andrea rossato >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Frank Bennett <[email protected]> writes: >>>> Andrea, >>>> >>>> Thanks for looking carefully. >>>> >>>> One issue is very clear. In the >>>> disambiguate_ByCiteRetainNamesOnFailureIfYearSuffixNotAvailable test, >>>> by-cite disambiguation should cycle through name expansions after >>>> adding names to see if anything helps. The processor currently only >>>> attempts one "step" of name expansion with this disambiguation rule, >>>> which is why disambiguation doesn't occur on the second full name in >>>> that pairing. It's a known limitation at the moment, which may be a >>>> hangover from days before the disambiguation code was cleaned up and >>>> made easier to comprehend and control. I'll look into improving on >>>> that when time permits. I agree that it should be possible -- and if >>>> you have a running implementation with better behavior, the spec can >>>> certainly be amended to that effect. >>> >>> If I understand correctly you agree that expanding rendered names with >>> initials and, if needed, given-names should be done before adding new >>> names. This is the way I'm interpreting the spec and this is also the >>> way citeproc-hs is coded to do. >>> >>> Another way to intend disambiguation is first to try to add names one by >>> one, then to try with names plus initials one by one, and then to try >>> with names plus given-names one by one. This is the way citeproc-js >>> seems to work. But this is not the way I interpret the spec. So the spec >>> should be amended only if we think this second disambiguation algorithm >>> is to be preferred. >> >> I can see how it would result in an earlier termination in some cases. >> I'm not sure when I'd find the time for the revisions to the >> processor. What do you think, do you prefer that method (i.e. running >> the full add/expand cycle on each name as it is added)? > > I'm not sure but I think running the full add/expand cycle on each name > as it is added permits to have fewer names and thus a smaller impact on > the "et-al" settings. For me it is also easier to code -- but I'm not > sure, since I didn't try the other method.
That sounds right to me. Rintze: If the discussion here is clear, would any change to spec be needed to specify clearly the behavior Andrea has implemented, or did I just misread (or mis-write) the docs? > > Andrea > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Get your Android app more play: Bring it to the BlackBerry PlayBook > in minutes. BlackBerry App World™ now supports Android™ Apps > for the BlackBerry® PlayBook™. Discover just how easy and simple > it is! http://p.sf.net/sfu/android-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > xbiblio-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your Android app more play: Bring it to the BlackBerry PlayBook in minutes. BlackBerry App World™ now supports Android™ Apps for the BlackBerry® PlayBook™. Discover just how easy and simple it is! http://p.sf.net/sfu/android-dev2dev _______________________________________________ xbiblio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
