citation-style-language
Primer should recommend validating editor, rather than post-facto validation
Current primer says "After making changes to a CSL style, it is always a good idea to check whether the style still validates," which suggests it's a good idea to edit without real-time validation.
You might insert something like this somewhere: "It is easiest to do XML editing with editing tools that support real-time completion and validation (such as emacs nxml mode)."
- Bitbucket: https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-docs/issue/8
- Originally Reported By: Bruce D'Arcus
- Originally Created At: 2011-02-15 18:53:42
Again, I think this is outside the scope of the primer. I don't consider emacs and nxml mode beginners material, and existing emacs users can probably figure this out by themselves.
Original Comment By: Rintze Zelle
I can see that. But the primer is making recommendations implicitly about how to do this (the "After making changes ..." bit).
Maybe we should recommend atom instead of emacs?
Yes; see the little package I created for atom. I'm happy to move the repo to csl if there's any interest in that.
I think @rmzelle already addressed this issue, however, since the text I quoted originally is no longer there.
But we could change this to do the above:
You can use a CSL validator to check a CSL style for any errors.
@bdarcus Yeah, I think let's move this repo to CSL, and we can add a similar one for VS Code if a similar parent RNG validator is developed for that.
