Going back to the notional rules from my original note, they were: (1) The first character of a name particle in first position on the first-listed name in a bibliography is force to a capital letter.
(2) A particle not in first position is always forced to lowercase. As another data point, I have learned from Stephan De Spiegeleire that in Belgium his name is alphabetised under "D", and the particle is treated as a fixed part of his family name, while publishers in the Netherlands lowercase the "D", and sort his name under "S". Particles set as a fixed part of the family name are a known issue, handled in Zotero's two-field input by enclosing the name in quotes. The fact that they are not necessarily static in all contexts -- that a publisher might chose to treat it instead as a tussenvoegsel -- is a little awkward with that approach, but I don't see how to can be more refined without unacceptable complexity in the UI. While in this particular case the two rules work out okay, I think that maybe rule (2) can be dropped. It would be useful only if this combination is desired: citation: (Smith, J. & Van Jones, B.) bibliography: John Smith and Brenda van Jones Rule (2) could produce this result (if the ambiguous "first position" modifier in the rule is taken to mean "first position in the printed name, wherever it occurs in the citation"). I don't think we've seen evidence this combination is ever wanted, though. Frank On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Bruce D'Arcus <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Rintze Zelle <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Bruce D'Arcus <[email protected]> wrote: >> > That's the point: if we're changing the test suite to respond to >> > non-documented behavior, then we better document it. >> >> I suggest we first hammer out the behavioral details here on the list >> (which seems to have better reach than the GitHub issue tracker). Once >> there is consensus, > > That's fine. But I still think we need to be in the habit of clearly > and consistently documenting use cases and requirements in one place, > rather than forcing people to dig through different places to > reconstruct. > > Putting forward proposal spec language early, in my view, is more efficient > ... > >> I'll open a GitHub issue to keep track of the >> required textual changes to the spec. >> >> I found some supportive information in >> http://www.ntvg.nl/publicatie/huidkanker-van-smeren-tot-snijden/volledig >> (an article from a Dutch medical journal that uses Vancouver). >> Bibliographic entry 21: >> >> 21. De Vijlder HC, Sterenborg HJCM, Neumann HAM, Robinson DJ, de Haas >> ERM. Light fractionation significantly improves the response of >> superficial basal cell carcinoma to aminolaevulinic acid photodynamic >> therapy: five-year follow-up of a randomized, prospective trial. Acta >> Derm Venereol. 2012;92:641-7 >> >> Both "De" and "de" are both Dutch non-dropping name particles, and, as >> Frank has in one of his tests, only the one starting the bibliographic >> entry gets capitalized. >> >> I don't know if things are different in other languages, though. > > Right. > > Bruce > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar > _______________________________________________ > xbiblio-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ xbiblio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
