Closed mjy closed 6 years ago
There's no difference in the basic mechanics, just the intent and class of content both accept. The present gem and Anystyle both have Namae as a dependency. And, both anystyle and Namae are authored by the same person. The present gem differs in handling much of the cruft in DwC terms so is a rather domain-specific cleansing routine prior to passing to Namae. Anystyle as you know is specific to bibliographic citations. I do not believe there is any cause of redundancy unless Namae were refined to permit its own cleansing routine prior to parsing names.
Thanks for clarifying to my lazy self, very useful. I feel like I should have just "googled it" :).
It wasn't an unfounded comment because Anystyle itself has a comparable "clean the cruft" normalizer prior to passing content to Namae. See https://github.com/inukshuk/anystyle/blob/master/lib/anystyle/normalizer/names.rb. And, I wasn't very transparent in dependencies nor acknowledged the Namae gem so I fixed the README.
How is the code here different, or the same, than tools used by or in anystyle? There is a lot of sophistication elsewhere that might make code redundant.