Additional locators

[georgd]

I don’t know if this makes sense in vanilla CSL but the AGLC lists the following locators that haven’t been added yet (AGLC4, 3.1.4):

• clause
• division
• schedule
• sub-clause
• subdivision
• sub-paragraph
• subsection

[bdarcus]

Links and/or definitions and/or examples would be helpful.

[georgd]

Sorry, of course here’s the link to the fourth edition of the Australian Guide to Legal Citation: https://www.mulr.com.au/aglc/AGLC4-June-2020-v2.pdf

You find the table with the locators and examples on pp. 69-70.

[bdarcus]

Thanks.

We maybe need to come up with a principle by which we distinguish between legal support in CSL proper, and fuller-featured legal support in Juris-M.

While it may not be so clear, perhaps CSL supports legal citations in non-legal fields (generic legal support, for history, sociology, etc.), while Juris-M does law proper?

[bdarcus]

Your suggestions in #353 make sense. How do you think that should impact assessment of this list?

[georgd]

Your suggestions in #353 make sense. How do you think that should impact assessment of this list?

Well, there are various questions to answer:

• Are locators on this list used anywhere outside legal practice?
• The list of locators is already quite long — the larger the worse the UX (in graphical interfaces) — is it worth adding them?
• The AGLC style currently only exists in vanilla CSL, is this a reason to add them?

As far as I understand, the possibility to add a string to a locator field will stay in the new design. And as these are all lower level locations, the workaround to use them in a string in a higher level locator field might work reasonably well — like it does already.