Upgrade Storagedisambiguate subsequent in note styles
The MHRA style uses author names only for subsequent citations:
But for two works by the same author, the title is added:In all references to a book or article after the first, the shortest intelligible
form should be used. This will normally be the author’s name followed by
the volume (if applicable) and page reference:
McArthur, p. 62.
Chadwick and Chadwick, iii, 72.
Elsky, pp. 42–46 (p. 43).
I don't think this is possible currently, right? How about csl 1.0? In general, any ideas?Sometimes it may be necessary, for example when more
than one work by an author has been cited, to repeat a title, in a shortened
form:
McArthur, Worlds of Reference, p. 9.
This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Instead of commenting here, you should start a new discussion. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.
<if position="subsequent"><text macro="contributors-short"/>
<choose>
<if disambiguate="true">
<text variable="title" form="short"/>
</if>
</choose>
<text macro="locators-specific-note" prefix=", "/>
<text macro="point-locators"/>
</if>
(disambiguation isn't my expertise, so the following might not make any sense)
In my understanding, CSL 0.8 (and 1.0) and the CSL processors disambiguate by just checking whether identical in-text citations would occur if no disambiguation attempts are made, whereas ideally you'd check whether each cite unambiguously points to a certain reference in the bibliography. If I'm assuming this correctly, it is likely that there will be two problems with the solution above. First, the title will probably only be added when subsequent citations exist for both works of the same author, which doesn't have to be the case. Secondly, it would require that the locators are removed from the in-text citation before the disambiguate-conditional is tested, and I don't know if that's how the CSL processors operate.
[1] Doe, His Book 12 (2000); Doe, His Other Book 23 (2001).
[2] Noakes, His Book 34 (1730).
[3] Roe, Her Book 45 (1998).
[4] Roe, Her Other Book 56 (1999).
[5] Doe, His Book, supra note 1, at 67.
[6] Roe, Her Book, supra note 3, at 78.
[7] Noakes, supra note 2, at 89.
It's been awhile since I looked at this part of the processor code, but it apparently disables the locator string when checking for ambiguity.
[1] Doe, His Book 12 (2000); Doe, His Other Book 23 (2001).
[2] Doe, His Book, supra note 1, at 67.
(i.e. only one work is subsequently cited)?
edit: whoops, this case is already in your original example.
I haven't been able to get this to work with Rintze's code for 0.8, though - if someone is motivated to test this to confirm I'm not doing something wrong that'd be great. Otherwise, I'm perfectly content to wait for 1.0.