Open georgd opened 4 years ago
This is by intention, but we may have some work to do. Some statutory §'s are referred to frequently enough that managing comments in the DB would be useful. (In particular, so §'s of the U.S. Tax Code are many pages long, with deeply nested subsections.) Merging section
and locator
is meant to address that use case, while allowing users to cite by locator
pinpoint only if that is their preference. It's syntactically messy, but convenient.
Where these two variables need to be treated separately, we have a few options for schema revision. We could add a style option that disables merger for one or more jurisdictions. We could add a separate variable for independent use. Or we could disable merger if the section
variable is rendered on its own within the cite. There may be other options, but those are the ones that pop up on quick reflection.
Hello! Was this discussion ever expanded on? I'm been trying to implement the long-dreaded constitutional statute citation for Canada, and I'm running into the same problem that Georg had.
I’m implementing the IBFD citation guidelines in CSLand CSLm and got some unexpected output with the use of the variable
section
. This variable is listed as a standard variable in the documentation so I assume no special behaviour tied to it.The guidlines require the following for national legislation:
The fifth point
sec./art. Number
would be implemented using the Zotero/Juris-M fieldSection
which maps to variablesection
.I‘m getting the expected output on calling the variable directly like this:
But to my surprise the contents of the field are rendered again when calling the locators with this macro:
This time, the field contents (I tested with field contents
sec. 8-1
are treated and parsed as numeric, so they printsecs. 8-1
.I don’t think this is correct behaviour. IMO, locators shouldn’t be drawn from the record but only from the corresponding field in the citation popup (when using a word processor).