<reftype name="all"> or just <reftype> (maybe this one should be omitted?
putting it in gives more symmetry between citation and bibliography)
> why not change it so
> Citation uses
> <multiple-authors type="first">
> <multiple-authors type="subsequent">
> <layout type="first">
> <reftype name="all"> or just <reftype> (maybe this one should be
> putting it in gives more symmetry between citation and bibliography)
> Bibliography uses
> <reftype name="bla">
> This way <citation> and <bibliography> use a more similar construction
> might make it easier to parse as code can be reused more easily.
Seems sensible. Will look into it.
> Btw, wouldn't it be handy to have a <title> element for
> <bibiliography> so
> as to indicate wether the references should be referred to as
> or as "Bibliography" or as "Refs"...
This is where things start to get tricky. Where does one draw the line
between document styling and citation/bib styling?
Where this becomes really clear, and difficult, is on handling
configuration for multiple bibliographies, and sections of
bibliographies (say groups based on type (primary vs. secondary,
newspapers vs. general, etc.) or authors). I STILL haven't figured out
how to do this.
> For the number citations. Are you going to use a simplification
> routine to
> shorten a citation to "1,2,3,4,6" to "1-4,6"? I guess such a thing
> needs a
> on/off switch in <citation>?
Any suggestions? I don't use this style, but know I need this (and I'm
not sure how to code it in CiteProc!).
I guess to answer my own question partly, it'd probably be fine to set
the bib title in CSL, but I would expect that the styling of that title
would be handled by the document style system for the most part, since
it's basically a sectional heading of some sort.
It'd help to figure out the grouping problem as part of comprehensive