Upgrade Storage[Feature request] Position check for "supra"
Hello!
Currently, according to the documentation, there are four position values for position : "first", "ibid", "ibid-with-locator", and "subsequent".
Still according to the document, "ibid-with-locator" will return true if in two scenarios: 1) the preceding cite does not have a locator and the current cite does, or 2) the preceding cite does have a locator and the current cite has a different locator.
I was wondering if it would be possible to add a fifth value for position "supra", which would return true in the case of scenario 2. This would allow for citation styles, like the McGill guide, which require that Supra be used both in "subsequent" cites AND in a situation like scenario 2.
To preserve compatibility with other styles, it could even be arranged that when "supra" return true, "ibid-with-locator" also return true, just like the current behavior where "subsequent" will return true if "ibid" or "ibid-with-locator" returns true.
Thank you!
It seems I messed up my explanation. In order to be fully compliant with the McGill guide, position would need to return "subsequent" when (1) the previous citation's position is "ibid-with-locator" AND (2) the current citation has a locator with is different from the previous citation's locator.
Now that I've realized this, it suddenly makes this entire thing much more complicated, and I'm not sure if it would be possible to implement...
Currently, according to the documentation, there are four position values for position : "first", "ibid", "ibid-with-locator", and "subsequent".
Still according to the document, "ibid-with-locator" will return true if in two scenarios: 1) the preceding cite does not have a locator and the current cite does, or 2) the preceding cite does have a locator and the current cite has a different locator.
It seems I messed up my explanation. In order to be fully compliant with the McGill guide, position would need to return "subsequent" when (1) the previous citation's position is "ibid-with-locator" AND (2) the current citation has a locator with is different from the previous citation's locator.
Now that I've realized this, it suddenly makes this entire thing much more complicated, and I'm not sure if it would be possible to implement...