Date ranges with ordinal French option format
Hello,
Unless I am mistaken, it seems to me that the "limit-day-ordinals-to-day-1" option is mismanaged by the date ranges placed in the Extra Field.
Indeed, with the option activated (for French date format) in my CSL:
and with this code:
when the day of the first date is "1", the day of the second date (never mind that day is: 2, 6, 12, 30, etc.) is also formatted in ordinal (which is incorrect in French). Conversely, when the day of the first date is not "1", the day of the second date is never formatted in ordinal (even if it is "1").
In short, here's what I get:
I don't know if it's a known issue.
Thank you all!
Unless I am mistaken, it seems to me that the "limit-day-ordinals-to-day-1" option is mismanaged by the date ranges placed in the Extra Field.
Indeed, with the option activated (for French date format) in my CSL:
<style-options limit-day-ordinals-to-day-1="true"/>
and with this code:
<date delimiter=" " variable="event-date">
<date-part name="day" form="ordinal" range-delimiter="-"/>
<date-part name="month" form="short" range-delimiter="-"/>
<date-part name="year" range-delimiter="-"/>
</date>
when the day of the first date is "1", the day of the second date (never mind that day is: 2, 6, 12, 30, etc.) is also formatted in ordinal (which is incorrect in French). Conversely, when the day of the first date is not "1", the day of the second date is never formatted in ordinal (even if it is "1").
In short, here's what I get:
Event Date: 2011-07-01/2011-07-14
> « 1ᵉʳ-14ᵉ juill. 2011 » (the outcome should be : 1ᵉʳ-14 juill. 2011)Event Date: 2011-07-14/2011-07-01
> « 14-1 juill. 2011 » (the outcome should be : 14-1ᵉʳ)I don't know if it's a known issue.
Thank you all!
Can you make short CSL style that illustrates this behavior and post a link here?
Please find here a CSL style : https://hastebin.com/ayiludohik.xml
You can reproduce the issue with the csl-data.json here, for example : https://hastebin.com/qarulegala.json
https://github.com/Juris-M/citeproc-js/issues/139#issuecomment-650641002