On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Sylvester Keil <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm very much for more expressive conditionals. Like most others, it seems, I
> like the current compact syntax and I am therefore reluctant to add nested
> elements instead. However, having seen the American Law Style I understand
> why you would want to add them.
>
> I find that supporting two different syntax variants for conditionals long
> term adds unnecessary complexity to both specification and implementation.
> The added overhead is simply not justified by the luxury of simple styles
> (even though they are the majority) being more compact – actually, for simple
> conditions the proposed syntax doesn't become unwieldy exactly.
If we decide to drop the old syntax for conditionals, we could make
simple conditions slightly more compact by optionally forgoing the
cs:conditions element if there is only a single cs:condition, e.g. see
the cs:else-if in:
<if>
<conditions match="all">
<condition type="article-journal" variable="volume issue" match="all"/>
<condition match="any">
<condition is-numeric="volume" match="none">
<condition is-numeric="issue" match="none">
</condition>
</conditions>
<text value="ARTICLE-JOURNAL w/VOLUME+ISSUE, one non-numeric"/>
</if>
<else-if>
<condition type="book">
<text value="BOOK"/>
</else-if>
( https://gist.github.com/rmzelle/5575708 )
> As far as versioning is concerned, I realize now that Rintze and I are
> probably of the same opinion, but that I was not aware that the plan was to
> drop incompatible legacy features (like the old ordinals) with the next major
> release – because of the way the spec reads right now I was under the
> impression you wanted to retain the old ordinal scheme for good:
>
> http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#ordinal-suffixes
I probably could have been more explicit in the spec. But the new
ordinal syntax is better in all respects than the old one, so the only
reason it's still around is for legacy reasons.
> I think that there should be a version of the schema for each release
> available. This is currently the case on GitHub using tags – that works very
> well. A style and locale should be allowed to specify exactly which version
> of the spec it is built for – including minor releases. This way a cite
> processor can adapt its processing routines (e.g., which ordinal algorithm to
> use) and the test suite knows against which schema to validate the style or
> locale.
I actually proposed something like this a while back:
https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/issues/85
Rintze
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete
security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and
efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls
from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
