Upgrade StorageSorting : original-date vs date
Let's say your style contains this:
That's not common at the moment because storing the original-date is a bit hackish.The issue is that items with an original date are sorted before those which don't have one, even if they are actually subsequent (reprinted) edition.
E.g:
Doe, Book, 12th ed., 2002 [1933], xx+1150 p.
Doe, Book, 1st ed., 1892, x+723 p.
Doe, Book, 2nd ed., 1893, xii+759 p.
The solution would be, for the purpose of sorting, to assume that the original-date of an item is its date, when nothing is stored in its original-date field.
What do you think of that?
That's not common at the moment because storing the original-date is a bit hackish.The issue is that items with an original date are sorted before those which don't have one, even if they are actually subsequent (reprinted) edition.
E.g:
Doe, Book, 12th ed., 2002 [1933], xx+1150 p.
Doe, Book, 1st ed., 1892, x+723 p.
Doe, Book, 2nd ed., 1893, xii+759 p.
The solution would be, for the purpose of sorting, to assume that the original-date of an item is its date, when nothing is stored in its original-date field.
What do you think of that?
...