moewew

Thank you for the pull request. Unfortunately, I'm a bit short of time at the moment and I'm not sure if I can have a look at the big picture...

Thank you for the improvements. I'm afraid to say that at the moment I'm not convinced this is an addition that is *either (1) encountered time and again or (2)...

@hushidong We could do that, but it wouldn't be particularly semantically sound. It's not that it is *hard* to implement the new dates, it's more about whether or not it...

I'm still not entirely sure what to do with this. I'm hoping to finish off `biblatex` 3.13 soon, so I think I will leave this open to discuss and pick...

Oh right, this is still open. Sorry about that. Since we already have some data model changes lined up for the next version we might as well look at this...

Hmmm, I still have my reservations about this. But they are mostly aesthetic: It just seems to be a lot of additional weight for a very, very narrow use case....

That's more or less what I feel as well, but there is an argument to be made that support in the standard styles would help with adoption of these kind...

> The problem is the patent style is not usuable for patent status. This depends on the style, I'd say. I'm pretty sure APA style would be OK with only...

@NikolayTach No, this PR hasn't been merged and is therefore not in the release version of `biblatex` (and not on CTAN). We're still debating whether an extension of the data...

@josephwright Cool. I actually have `l3build` running for `biblatex-ext` already (https://github.com/moewew/biblatex-ext), but I'm not entirely happy with my setup. The main problem is that the only way I could find...