-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Ibid. #7
Comments
Are you saying it should be subsequent because of the intervening footnote? That's still something I need to figure out. Currently citeproc only knows about the citations passed in to it, not about other, non-citation notes. I think that's fixable but so far I haven't done it. You can leave this here. |
I've started to add code to help with this, but looking at the spec, it doesn't say anything about this; it generally talks of distance between citations rather than between notes, and ignores the possibility of notes that occur between citations. |
With the new code in citeproc branch, I get (plain text output):
so this seems to be working. But there are still some bugs to iron out. |
I'll discuss whether we should add this to the spec. |
Here's another nice test:
I currently get:
which looks right. Deleting the asdf note gives you Ibid for the final citation, also right. What's happening there is that citeproc thinks that the last citation to Doe 2005 is a citation with just one item. Well, it is, technically. But this citation occurs in a pandoc footnote with two citations, so probably we don't want an Ibid. |
Good question what the most reasonable behaviour would be. Different users might want different results... Maybe a The general issue aside: a mancite command could be used to deal with these edge cases. |
|
I think this is all working now. |
Great. I'll test with the latest dev version. Ok: Did a first test. Seems to work so far. Thank you! |
I couldn't find the test. |
I've got pandoc working now for this.
|
You definitely don't want "ibid" in note 14, as people might think it's a reference to Doe 2006, and would have no way of knowing it's to 2005. So I'm glad pandoc can now achieve that. Note also the ibid within note 13, referring to an earlier citation in the same note. That also is correct, I believe. |
That looks good to me. I also think this is how it should be. Just two questions regarding note 13 and 14:
Then: If we change the location of the citations:
In this case, what is the result? Should there an "ibid." in the second footnote? |
You get this:
I think that's correct too. (Though here one might raise questions.) By the way, there's something a bit off about capitalization -- Ibid. is sometimes capitalized, sometimes not; I'm having trouble figuring out what rules citeproc-js uses for this kind of thing, just going by the test suite. They don't seem to be documented. |
Also, the doubled parens in n. 1 are awkward. That's a result of converting a note citation that occurs within a note into a parenthetical. Maybe it would be better to use square brackets? This is a style people should try to avoid, anyway. |
Correct, yes. But, I remember seeing instructions like: Avoid ibids if they don't refer to a citation only note. (That's why I contemplated having a
Hmm, I think it should be capitalized at the beginning of a note or at the beginning of a sentence.
At least Chicago require this kind of parentheses-to-brackets-conversion for parentheses inside parentheses. Should work very much like quotation marks inside quotaiton marks. But I've heard it's a language specific thing. While that is common in US English (and German), British English does not seem to require such a conversion. |
I've just gave it a shot with pandoc compiled from the citeproc branch.
This here still doesn't work as expected:
The second citation still renders with
position="ibid"
. I think it should besubsequent
.(Is this the correct place for this issues? Or should I re-open it at the pandoc issue tracker?)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: