Your style is invalid CSL: the first macro ('name-macro') is missing an if-conditional. You can find some info on validating CSL styles at http://www.zotero.org/support/dev/creating_citation_styles

For what it's worth, Trang generally works for converting from .rnc to .rng:

java -jar trang.jar -I rnc -O rng csl.rnc csl.rng

@Dan: I did try converting the RNC to RNG with Trang, but it didn't seem to work when I tried to use it with the validator. Will try again with the command as you've set it out.

@bdarcus: I like the sound of real time validation. Will give Aqua Emacs a go.

Bruce: That's not the case. A post-commit script just updates the timestamp when generating the repo version regardless of whether or not there's a timestamp in the committed file, which is why I've suggested that leaving the timestamp empty when committing is fine. But leaving in any arbitrary timestamp so as to pass validation is also fine—there's just no reason to bother updating it manually.

I could have sworn I previously ran into problems when committing files with valid (non-empty) timestamps.

It's entirely possible. That part of the post-commit code has been buggy in the past.

Hi all, can you also help me on 'section' it does not display as a pinpoint reference with ALC?

I have tried both adding the section to the record or adding as a pinpoint when inserting a citation. I can add by hand after the inserted citation but this does not work with the period at the end of the auto citation when I refresh.

I hope this all makes sense. I'm not a coder. I would like to help improve ALC. I can test and do requirements gathering.

Regards,

Dale

Sure, BTW, thanks Adam.

1. high priority (for me) resource www.austlii.edu.au translator does not work
2. 'statute' record type does not contain a 'jurisdiction' field type. After experimentation I have discovered that field type 'extra' does the job
3. Footnote for AGLC2 or zotero ALC 'statute' citation style should be:
3.1 <i>name of act</i> <i>date(year only)</i> <>jurisdiction(in brackets) or extra(fudge)</> <>pinpoint</><>.</> note: option to leave off URL and accessed date, I don't want it but others might?
3.2 example: <i>Crimes Act 1900</i> (NSW) ss 19A, 442. Note: pinpoint can be 'part' 'section' 'div' 'page' etc I would prefer the field was just "pinpoint" and not include the high degree of granularity that exists. That way within the field I can include a wide range of pinpoint options and multiple pinpoints without too much complexity.
4. ALC does not include a bibliography.
4.1 Bibliography should include all records in a folder
4.2 It should sort records by type and alphabetically:
4.2.1 articles/books/reports
4.2.2 case law
4.2.3 legislation
4.2.4 treaties
4.2.5 other sources (interviews/letters/memos/emails etc)

The discovery of the 'extra' field has solved my jurisdiction problems. The pinpoint problems still exist though I am including pinpoints in the footnote after the zotero field entry. Before publishing I will run a find/replace on ".s" and replace with s and everything will be sweet for me. Finally, I personally would prefer that the statute record type was called 'legislation' but that's just me and I can certainly live with it.

Thanks again Adam.

I'm responsible for the style as it stands at the moment. There are (sometimes good) reasons for the limitations you have picked up on - I'll try and address them as best I can:

* Re jurisdiction field: not all Zotero fields are available to CSL (just not implemented yet) - extra is one of those few fields that is, so that's why I've used it for jurisdiction.

* Re statute: can you give an example of how it currently (improperly) outputs pinpoint references? Oh and the jury is out as to whether the year should be italicised or not. Some say yes, some say no. I don't care, but like the look of it italicised, but if there's a more people using the style who want it changed, I'm happy to do it.

* Re bibliographies: you're right, I haven't even got that far yet. Glad I didn't since CSL/Zotero don't handle it yet. It might be possible to get around that by generating a properly formatted bibliography document for a particular collection as an RTF or the like.

Hope that helps - thanks for the feedback.

Not knowing the etiquette, though, I have not checked in to SVN.

Feel free to submit your changes to the SVN. It's appreciated if you first validate your modified style(s), though (see http://www.zotero.org/support/dev/creating_citation_styles ). Thanks!

the style you uploaded validates fine for me. How do you validate? What you did looks perfectly alright.
Also nice working commenting your work so thoroughly.

yeah - I just saw that the repository doesn't think it's valid either, nor does validator.nu
I validate with nxml on emacs and that says its valid.
weird. Maybe someone else has an idea?

Nope. We just pull from that URL and validate.