This issue hasn't seen any activity in the past 30 days. It will be automatically closed if no further activity occurs in the next two weeks.

This issue hasn't seen any activity in the past 30 days. It will be automatically closed if no further activity occurs in the next two weeks.

nope!

I understand DIN 1505-2 isn't technically valid anymore, but it still appears to see a fair amount of usage, so we're not going to merge them with ISO 690, no.

As for the citation format -- the two formats do different things.

produces [1], [2] (as e.g. used in IEEE style) whereas

produces [1, 2] (like most other numeric styles)
I don't see clear indications which of the two is correct.

@adam3smith; The amount of usage means nothing when this citation style is the only one, which suits the German standard, as it claims by its name. Afterall, many people will discover that there are problems with this style. Well, the name 'DIN 1505' could remain, because many people keep searching for this outdated standard. Still it should have 'ISO 690' added into its name, so this style can be found by both search terms.

As I already explained above by the source code, the original version of DIN 1505 wrongly produces [1], [2] instead of [1, 2]. This forces many people to search for a better alternative style.

As far as I know, the ISO 690 standard is distinct from the DIN 1505 style.
That means they can and should not be merged.

If ISO 690 did not replace DIN 1505, then I would not have opened this issue on github.
Here you may check the reference, stating that DIN 1505 is no longer valid ⤵️
amendment note & full text

I understand 1505 isn't valid as a DIN anymore. I'm fairly certain, though, that this doesn't make its use impossible or illegal and I'd be fairly certain that there are plenty of Lehrstühle that still refer,
specifically, to the old DIN norm and not the updated ISO 690 one. You can argue that that's normatively bad and against the spirit of norming citation styles and I'd have a lot of sympathy for that, but my goal here is to provide maximum utility for users who often don't have a choice in this matter.

We have plenty of "outdated" citation styles (such as APA 5th edition, MLA 7th edition, Chicago 16th edition, etc.) available for download for just that reason. We´ll keep DIN 1505-2 for just that reason, though I´m happy to take PRs for an ISO 690 one (and it looks like @ApolloLV has started work on that).

As for [1], [2] vs. [1, 2] I was asking which is/was correct according to the DIN. I couldn't find a clear statement either way and both occur in citation styles.