oh, no, that's a misunderstanding. Of course I consider getting citations exactly right important. Everything else would be rather silly in the context of this list. What I meant was that we could set page-range-format="expanded" for all styles that don't have anything else set if that is important to help reference managers get citations right. With Zotero this is pretty much a non-issue, I've hardly ever seen the shortened page ranges imported (i.e. from the Zotero perspective this isn't imporant/makes no difference either way).
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] <malon...@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov> wrote: >> From: Carles Pina [mailto:carles.p...@mendeley.com] >> Hi, >> >> On 2 May 2014 21:50, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] >> <malon...@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov> wrote: >> > I see that CSL defines page range format >> (http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#appendix-v-page- >> range-formats) for determining how page ranges are supposed to display. I >> just want to verify that in the citeproc-json format, it is good and proper >> to >> always give the full numbers in the page range? I.e., it should be ` "page": >> "479-482"`, and not ` "page": "479-82"`? >> > >> > I notice that the json produced by Mendeley has the latter, and I suspect >> that it is wrong, but I want to make sure. >> >> Yes, this is wrong. My guess is that the original "page" field in the >> Document >> details is 479-82. AFAIR we just pass the page there - we don't manipulate it >> at all. >> > > Sebastian Karcher wrote: > >> As Frank says, the full date range is clearly and always preferred, but CSL >> processors should (and citeproc-js can) convert 479-82 to >> 479-482 when page-range-format="expanded" is set (which isn't the case for >> most styles at this time, but could be done relatively easily if it's >> important). > > Frank Bennett wrote: > >> Yes, absolutely. Full information should be in the data. > > > Yeah, a lot of people would say it's not important: "it's cosmetic". But, of > course, just about everything related to citation styles is cosmetic. I'd > rather see the "hub format", i.e. the citeproc-json, be somewhat strict in > this, and unambiguously require the "full information", "479-482". That > would lower the burden on the processors, and would help to guarantee > consistent behavior across processors, and when the CSLs don't specify a > page-range-format. > > Chris Maloney > NIH/NLM/NCBI (Contractor) > Building 45, 5AN.24D-22 > 301-594-2842 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: > • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity > • Requirements for releasing software faster > • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now > http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce > _______________________________________________ > xbiblio-devel mailing list > xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel -- Sebastian Karcher Ph.D. Candidate Department of Political Science Northwestern University ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity • Requirements for releasing software faster • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce _______________________________________________ xbiblio-devel mailing list xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
