Quantcast

CSL Specificaton question (et-al-min/et-al-use-first)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

CSL Specificaton question (et-al-min/et-al-use-first)

fbennett
This weekend, I'm overhauling some of the names code in citeproc-js,
to fix some long-standing bugs in attribute inheritance. One of the
test failures doesn't actually look like a failure, and I'd like to
confirm that I'm not misreading the spec.

The test is this one:

    https://github.com/citation-style-language/test-suite/blob/master/processor-tests/humans/nameattr_EtAlUseFirstOnCitationInBibliography.txt

In the fixture, a value for et-al-min is set on separate cs:name nodes
inside cs:citation and cs:bibliography, and a value of 2 for
et-al-use-first is set on the cs:citation node. The test renders the
bibliography.

The bibliography comes out with all three names given in the input.
The fixture RESULT has one name, truncated by et al.

I don't see anything in the spec about defaulting to a value of 1 for
et-al-use-first, and it says that "[u]se of these two attributes
enables et-al abbreviation." Since the test provides a value for only
one of the attributes inside cs:bibliography, it sounds like listing
all three names there is the right thing to do (and the original
RESULT string was wrong).

So ... should I amend the test there?

Frank

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CSL Specificaton question (et-al-min/et-al-use-first)

Sylvester Keil
Hi Frank,

Just to let you know, the test in question passes in citeproc-ruby too.
After some digging I found the commit that sets the default to 1 to
refer to this being citeproc-js' default value specifically (likely
inferred from the test at hand). If you remove the default value, I'll
also remove it from citeproc-ruby.

Sylvester



On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 14:51 +0900, Frank Bennett wrote:

> This weekend, I'm overhauling some of the names code in citeproc-js,
> to fix some long-standing bugs in attribute inheritance. One of the
> test failures doesn't actually look like a failure, and I'd like to
> confirm that I'm not misreading the spec.
>
> The test is this one:
>
>     https://github.com/citation-style-language/test-suite/blob/master
> /processor-
> tests/humans/nameattr_EtAlUseFirstOnCitationInBibliography.txt
>
> In the fixture, a value for et-al-min is set on separate cs:name
> nodes
> inside cs:citation and cs:bibliography, and a value of 2 for
> et-al-use-first is set on the cs:citation node. The test renders the
> bibliography.
>
> The bibliography comes out with all three names given in the input.
> The fixture RESULT has one name, truncated by et al.
>
> I don't see anything in the spec about defaulting to a value of 1 for
> et-al-use-first, and it says that "[u]se of these two attributes
> enables et-al abbreviation." Since the test provides a value for only
> one of the attributes inside cs:bibliography, it sounds like listing
> all three names there is the right thing to do (and the original
> RESULT string was wrong).
>
> So ... should I amend the test there?
>
> Frank
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CSL Specificaton question (et-al-min/et-al-use-first)

fbennett
Sylvester,

Great. I've removed the constraint in the current processor release,
but it might be restored after discussion. From a quick check of the
repo, it looks like five styles rely on the default value. If that's
roughly representative of styles in the wild, the impact will be
small, but some people might be bitten.

Two additional styles use an extremely high value for et-al-min,
presumably with the intention of listing all authors; those would not
be (much) affected.

Curious to hear the views of @adam42smith and @rmzelle on the issue.

Here is the list of affected styles:

harvard-the-university-of-melbourne
ithaque
le-tapuscrit-note
philosophiques
geochimica-et-cosmochimica-acta (et-al-min="1000")
harvard-oxford-brookes-university-faculty-of-health-and-life-sciences
(et-al-min="100")
universite-libre-de-bruxelles-histoire

Frank



On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Sylvester Keil <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Frank,
>
> Just to let you know, the test in question passes in citeproc-ruby too.
> After some digging I found the commit that sets the default to 1 to
> refer to this being citeproc-js' default value specifically (likely
> inferred from the test at hand). If you remove the default value, I'll
> also remove it from citeproc-ruby.
>
> Sylvester
>
>
>
> On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 14:51 +0900, Frank Bennett wrote:
>> This weekend, I'm overhauling some of the names code in citeproc-js,
>> to fix some long-standing bugs in attribute inheritance. One of the
>> test failures doesn't actually look like a failure, and I'd like to
>> confirm that I'm not misreading the spec.
>>
>> The test is this one:
>>
>>     https://github.com/citation-style-language/test-suite/blob/master
>> /processor-
>> tests/humans/nameattr_EtAlUseFirstOnCitationInBibliography.txt
>>
>> In the fixture, a value for et-al-min is set on separate cs:name
>> nodes
>> inside cs:citation and cs:bibliography, and a value of 2 for
>> et-al-use-first is set on the cs:citation node. The test renders the
>> bibliography.
>>
>> The bibliography comes out with all three names given in the input.
>> The fixture RESULT has one name, truncated by et al.
>>
>> I don't see anything in the spec about defaulting to a value of 1 for
>> et-al-use-first, and it says that "[u]se of these two attributes
>> enables et-al abbreviation." Since the test provides a value for only
>> one of the attributes inside cs:bibliography, it sounds like listing
>> all three names there is the right thing to do (and the original
>> RESULT string was wrong).
>>
>> So ... should I amend the test there?
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------
>> _______________________________________________
>> xbiblio-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CSL Specificaton question (et-al-min/et-al-use-first)

fouke

CiteProc.NET also uses the default value of 1, probably because of the
test at hand. I'll remove the default value too.

Fouke


Frank Bennett schreef op 2016-09-05 11:16:

> Sylvester,
>
> Great. I've removed the constraint in the current processor release,
> but it might be restored after discussion. From a quick check of the
> repo, it looks like five styles rely on the default value. If that's
> roughly representative of styles in the wild, the impact will be
> small, but some people might be bitten.
>
> Two additional styles use an extremely high value for et-al-min,
> presumably with the intention of listing all authors; those would not
> be (much) affected.
>
> Curious to hear the views of @adam42smith and @rmzelle on the issue.
>
> Here is the list of affected styles:
>
> harvard-the-university-of-melbourne
> ithaque
> le-tapuscrit-note
> philosophiques
> geochimica-et-cosmochimica-acta (et-al-min="1000")
> harvard-oxford-brookes-university-faculty-of-health-and-life-sciences
> (et-al-min="100")
> universite-libre-de-bruxelles-histoire
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Sylvester Keil <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> Just to let you know, the test in question passes in citeproc-ruby
>> too.
>> After some digging I found the commit that sets the default to 1 to
>> refer to this being citeproc-js' default value specifically (likely
>> inferred from the test at hand). If you remove the default value, I'll
>> also remove it from citeproc-ruby.
>>
>> Sylvester
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 14:51 +0900, Frank Bennett wrote:
>>> This weekend, I'm overhauling some of the names code in citeproc-js,
>>> to fix some long-standing bugs in attribute inheritance. One of the
>>> test failures doesn't actually look like a failure, and I'd like to
>>> confirm that I'm not misreading the spec.
>>>
>>> The test is this one:
>>>
>>>     https://github.com/citation-style-language/test-suite/blob/master
>>> /processor-
>>> tests/humans/nameattr_EtAlUseFirstOnCitationInBibliography.txt
>>>
>>> In the fixture, a value for et-al-min is set on separate cs:name
>>> nodes
>>> inside cs:citation and cs:bibliography, and a value of 2 for
>>> et-al-use-first is set on the cs:citation node. The test renders the
>>> bibliography.
>>>
>>> The bibliography comes out with all three names given in the input.
>>> The fixture RESULT has one name, truncated by et al.
>>>
>>> I don't see anything in the spec about defaulting to a value of 1 for
>>> et-al-use-first, and it says that "[u]se of these two attributes
>>> enables et-al abbreviation." Since the test provides a value for only
>>> one of the attributes inside cs:bibliography, it sounds like listing
>>> all three names there is the right thing to do (and the original
>>> RESULT string was wrong).
>>>
>>> So ... should I amend the test there?
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -----------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xbiblio-devel mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xbiblio-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CSL Specificaton question (et-al-min/et-al-use-first)

Sebastian Karcher

Just to confirm that I agree the default shouldn't be there (and removing it will make reviewing a tiny bio easier for Rintze and me. Thanks!

Sent from my phone


On Sep 5, 2016 6:18 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

CiteProc.NET also uses the default value of 1, probably because of the
test at hand. I'll remove the default value too.

Fouke


Frank Bennett schreef op 2016-09-05 11:16:
> Sylvester,
>
> Great. I've removed the constraint in the current processor release,
> but it might be restored after discussion. From a quick check of the
> repo, it looks like five styles rely on the default value. If that's
> roughly representative of styles in the wild, the impact will be
> small, but some people might be bitten.
>
> Two additional styles use an extremely high value for et-al-min,
> presumably with the intention of listing all authors; those would not
> be (much) affected.
>
> Curious to hear the views of @adam42smith and @rmzelle on the issue.
>
> Here is the list of affected styles:
>
> harvard-the-university-of-melbourne
> ithaque
> le-tapuscrit-note
> philosophiques
> geochimica-et-cosmochimica-acta (et-al-min="1000")
> harvard-oxford-brookes-university-faculty-of-health-and-life-sciences
> (et-al-min="100")
> universite-libre-de-bruxelles-histoire
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Sylvester Keil <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> Just to let you know, the test in question passes in citeproc-ruby
>> too.
>> After some digging I found the commit that sets the default to 1 to
>> refer to this being citeproc-js' default value specifically (likely
>> inferred from the test at hand). If you remove the default value, I'll
>> also remove it from citeproc-ruby.
>>
>> Sylvester
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 14:51 +0900, Frank Bennett wrote:
>>> This weekend, I'm overhauling some of the names code in citeproc-js,
>>> to fix some long-standing bugs in attribute inheritance. One of the
>>> test failures doesn't actually look like a failure, and I'd like to
>>> confirm that I'm not misreading the spec.
>>>
>>> The test is this one:
>>>
>>>     https://github.com/citation-style-language/test-suite/blob/master
>>> /processor-
>>> tests/humans/nameattr_EtAlUseFirstOnCitationInBibliography.txt
>>>
>>> In the fixture, a value for et-al-min is set on separate cs:name
>>> nodes
>>> inside cs:citation and cs:bibliography, and a value of 2 for
>>> et-al-use-first is set on the cs:citation node. The test renders the
>>> bibliography.
>>>
>>> The bibliography comes out with all three names given in the input.
>>> The fixture RESULT has one name, truncated by et al.
>>>
>>> I don't see anything in the spec about defaulting to a value of 1 for
>>> et-al-use-first, and it says that "[u]se of these two attributes
>>> enables et-al abbreviation." Since the test provides a value for only
>>> one of the attributes inside cs:bibliography, it sounds like listing
>>> all three names there is the right thing to do (and the original
>>> RESULT string was wrong).
>>>
>>> So ... should I amend the test there?
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -----------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xbiblio-devel mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xbiblio-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CSL Specificaton question (et-al-min/et-al-use-first)

rmzelle
Administrator
Also agree. Can't recall ever reading about a default, don't think
it's a good idea, and it's not the intent of the current spec to allow
setting only one of the two et-al parameters of a set ("...-min" and
"...-use-first" for "et-al-..." and "et-al-subsequent-...").

With the hierarchical name attributes, it's not entirely
straightforward to test for the presence of both with validation, but
otherwise we'd screen for it. Maybe we should require that both
attributes of a set should occur on the same element. That would also
make it easier to ascertain that the "...-min" attribute has a higher
value than the "...-use-first" attribute, which is commonly violated
in submissions.

Rintze

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Sebastian Karcher
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Just to confirm that I agree the default shouldn't be there (and removing it
> will make reviewing a tiny bio easier for Rintze and me. Thanks!
>
> Sent from my phone
>
>
> On Sep 5, 2016 6:18 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> CiteProc.NET also uses the default value of 1, probably because of the
>> test at hand. I'll remove the default value too.
>>
>> Fouke
>>
>>
>> Frank Bennett schreef op 2016-09-05 11:16:
>> > Sylvester,
>> >
>> > Great. I've removed the constraint in the current processor release,
>> > but it might be restored after discussion. From a quick check of the
>> > repo, it looks like five styles rely on the default value. If that's
>> > roughly representative of styles in the wild, the impact will be
>> > small, but some people might be bitten.
>> >
>> > Two additional styles use an extremely high value for et-al-min,
>> > presumably with the intention of listing all authors; those would not
>> > be (much) affected.
>> >
>> > Curious to hear the views of @adam42smith and @rmzelle on the issue.
>> >
>> > Here is the list of affected styles:
>> >
>> > harvard-the-university-of-melbourne
>> > ithaque
>> > le-tapuscrit-note
>> > philosophiques
>> > geochimica-et-cosmochimica-acta (et-al-min="1000")
>> > harvard-oxford-brookes-university-faculty-of-health-and-life-sciences
>> > (et-al-min="100")
>> > universite-libre-de-bruxelles-histoire
>> >
>> > Frank
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Sylvester Keil <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi Frank,
>> >>
>> >> Just to let you know, the test in question passes in citeproc-ruby
>> >> too.
>> >> After some digging I found the commit that sets the default to 1 to
>> >> refer to this being citeproc-js' default value specifically (likely
>> >> inferred from the test at hand). If you remove the default value, I'll
>> >> also remove it from citeproc-ruby.
>> >>
>> >> Sylvester
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 14:51 +0900, Frank Bennett wrote:
>> >>> This weekend, I'm overhauling some of the names code in citeproc-js,
>> >>> to fix some long-standing bugs in attribute inheritance. One of the
>> >>> test failures doesn't actually look like a failure, and I'd like to
>> >>> confirm that I'm not misreading the spec.
>> >>>
>> >>> The test is this one:
>> >>>
>> >>>     https://github.com/citation-style-language/test-suite/blob/master
>> >>> /processor-
>> >>> tests/humans/nameattr_EtAlUseFirstOnCitationInBibliography.txt
>> >>>
>> >>> In the fixture, a value for et-al-min is set on separate cs:name
>> >>> nodes
>> >>> inside cs:citation and cs:bibliography, and a value of 2 for
>> >>> et-al-use-first is set on the cs:citation node. The test renders the
>> >>> bibliography.
>> >>>
>> >>> The bibliography comes out with all three names given in the input.
>> >>> The fixture RESULT has one name, truncated by et al.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't see anything in the spec about defaulting to a value of 1 for
>> >>> et-al-use-first, and it says that "[u]se of these two attributes
>> >>> enables et-al abbreviation." Since the test provides a value for only
>> >>> one of the attributes inside cs:bibliography, it sounds like listing
>> >>> all three names there is the right thing to do (and the original
>> >>> RESULT string was wrong).
>> >>>
>> >>> So ... should I amend the test there?
>> >>>
>> >>> Frank
>> >>>
>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> -----------
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> xbiblio-devel mailing list
>> >>> [hidden email]
>> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> xbiblio-devel mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > xbiblio-devel mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> xbiblio-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CSL Specificaton question (et-al-min/et-al-use-first)

Sylvester Keil
On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 00:35 -0400, Rintze Zelle wrote:

> Also agree. Can't recall ever reading about a default, don't think
> it's a good idea, and it's not the intent of the current spec to
> allow
> setting only one of the two et-al parameters of a set ("...-min" and
> "...-use-first" for "et-al-..." and "et-al-subsequent-...").
>
> With the hierarchical name attributes, it's not entirely
> straightforward to test for the presence of both with validation, but
> otherwise we'd screen for it. Maybe we should require that both
> attributes of a set should occur on the same element. That would also
> make it easier to ascertain that the "...-min" attribute has a higher
> value than the "...-use-first" attribute, which is commonly violated
> in submissions.
I don't think it's hard to write a test case for both cases (which
handles inheritance) -- shall I give it a try?

Sylvester


>
> Rintze
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Sebastian Karcher
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Just to confirm that I agree the default shouldn't be there (and
> > removing it
> > will make reviewing a tiny bio easier for Rintze and me. Thanks!
> >
> > Sent from my phone
> >
> >
> > On Sep 5, 2016 6:18 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > CiteProc.NET also uses the default value of 1, probably because
> > > of the
> > > test at hand. I'll remove the default value too.
> > >
> > > Fouke
> > >
> > >
> > > Frank Bennett schreef op 2016-09-05 11:16:
> > > >
> > > > Sylvester,
> > > >
> > > > Great. I've removed the constraint in the current processor
> > > > release,
> > > > but it might be restored after discussion. From a quick check
> > > > of the
> > > > repo, it looks like five styles rely on the default value. If
> > > > that's
> > > > roughly representative of styles in the wild, the impact will
> > > > be
> > > > small, but some people might be bitten.
> > > >
> > > > Two additional styles use an extremely high value for et-al-
> > > > min,
> > > > presumably with the intention of listing all authors; those
> > > > would not
> > > > be (much) affected.
> > > >
> > > > Curious to hear the views of @adam42smith and @rmzelle on the
> > > > issue.
> > > >
> > > > Here is the list of affected styles:
> > > >
> > > > harvard-the-university-of-melbourne
> > > > ithaque
> > > > le-tapuscrit-note
> > > > philosophiques
> > > > geochimica-et-cosmochimica-acta (et-al-min="1000")
> > > > harvard-oxford-brookes-university-faculty-of-health-and-life-
> > > > sciences
> > > > (et-al-min="100")
> > > > universite-libre-de-bruxelles-histoire
> > > >
> > > > Frank
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Sylvester Keil <sylvester@keil.
> > > > or.at>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Frank,
> > > > >
> > > > > Just to let you know, the test in question passes in
> > > > > citeproc-ruby
> > > > > too.
> > > > > After some digging I found the commit that sets the default
> > > > > to 1 to
> > > > > refer to this being citeproc-js' default value specifically
> > > > > (likely
> > > > > inferred from the test at hand). If you remove the default
> > > > > value, I'll
> > > > > also remove it from citeproc-ruby.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sylvester
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 14:51 +0900, Frank Bennett wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This weekend, I'm overhauling some of the names code in
> > > > > > citeproc-js,
> > > > > > to fix some long-standing bugs in attribute inheritance.
> > > > > > One of the
> > > > > > test failures doesn't actually look like a failure, and I'd
> > > > > > like to
> > > > > > confirm that I'm not misreading the spec.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The test is this one:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     https://github.com/citation-style-language/test-suite/b
> > > > > > lob/master
> > > > > > /processor-
> > > > > > tests/humans/nameattr_EtAlUseFirstOnCitationInBibliography.
> > > > > > txt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the fixture, a value for et-al-min is set on separate
> > > > > > cs:name
> > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > inside cs:citation and cs:bibliography, and a value of 2
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > et-al-use-first is set on the cs:citation node. The test
> > > > > > renders the
> > > > > > bibliography.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The bibliography comes out with all three names given in
> > > > > > the input.
> > > > > > The fixture RESULT has one name, truncated by et al.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see anything in the spec about defaulting to a
> > > > > > value of 1 for
> > > > > > et-al-use-first, and it says that "[u]se of these two
> > > > > > attributes
> > > > > > enables et-al abbreviation." Since the test provides a
> > > > > > value for only
> > > > > > one of the attributes inside cs:bibliography, it sounds
> > > > > > like listing
> > > > > > all three names there is the right thing to do (and the
> > > > > > original
> > > > > > RESULT string was wrong).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So ... should I amend the test there?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Frank
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > -----------
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > xbiblio-devel mailing list
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
> > > > >
> > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > -------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > xbiblio-devel mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > -----------------
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xbiblio-devel mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ---------------
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xbiblio-devel mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xbiblio-devel mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CSL Specificaton question (et-al-min/et-al-use-first)

rmzelle
Administrator
Yes, please. It would be out of reach of RELAX NG, and probably
Schematron as well, so a Ruby test would be great.

Rintze

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Sylvester Keil <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 00:35 -0400, Rintze Zelle wrote:
>> Also agree. Can't recall ever reading about a default, don't think
>> it's a good idea, and it's not the intent of the current spec to
>> allow
>> setting only one of the two et-al parameters of a set ("...-min" and
>> "...-use-first" for "et-al-..." and "et-al-subsequent-...").
>>
>> With the hierarchical name attributes, it's not entirely
>> straightforward to test for the presence of both with validation, but
>> otherwise we'd screen for it. Maybe we should require that both
>> attributes of a set should occur on the same element. That would also
>> make it easier to ascertain that the "...-min" attribute has a higher
>> value than the "...-use-first" attribute, which is commonly violated
>> in submissions.
>
> I don't think it's hard to write a test case for both cases (which
> handles inheritance) -- shall I give it a try?
>
> Sylvester
>
>
>>
>> Rintze

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CSL Specificaton question (et-al-min/et-al-use-first)

Sylvester Keil
On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 10:45 -0400, Rintze Zelle wrote:
> Yes, please. It would be out of reach of RELAX NG, and probably
> Schematron as well, so a Ruby test would be great.

Moving the discussion to:

https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/pull/2207



> Rintze
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Sylvester Keil <[hidden email]
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 00:35 -0400, Rintze Zelle wrote:
> > >
> > > Also agree. Can't recall ever reading about a default, don't
> > > think
> > > it's a good idea, and it's not the intent of the current spec to
> > > allow
> > > setting only one of the two et-al parameters of a set ("...-min"
> > > and
> > > "...-use-first" for "et-al-..." and "et-al-subsequent-...").
> > >
> > > With the hierarchical name attributes, it's not entirely
> > > straightforward to test for the presence of both with validation,
> > > but
> > > otherwise we'd screen for it. Maybe we should require that both
> > > attributes of a set should occur on the same element. That would
> > > also
> > > make it easier to ascertain that the "...-min" attribute has a
> > > higher
> > > value than the "...-use-first" attribute, which is commonly
> > > violated
> > > in submissions.
> >
> > I don't think it's hard to write a test case for both cases (which
> > handles inheritance) -- shall I give it a try?
> >
> > Sylvester
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Rintze
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CSL Specificaton question (et-al-min/et-al-use-first)

rmzelle
Administrator
Quick update: Sylvester very helpfully created tests to find
problematic instances where et-al-(subsequent-)min is missing its
et-al-(subsequent-)use-first partner and vice versa, and where the
*-min isn't higher than *-use-first. We fixed the 43 offending styles,
and are now testing for this going forward. Details at
https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/pull/2207

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Loading...