FWIW, if anyone wants to quickly clean up a set of page ranges you can use this simple script to do it:
https://gist.github.com/inukshuk/eb98ececbec23595a2d5 Just pipe in your page-ranges one per line and it will return the expanded page range. On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 18:26 -0600, Sebastian Karcher wrote: > 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 > > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
