On 13 Jan 2008, at 10:57 PM, Holger Frauenrath wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Christopher MacMinn wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks -
>>>
>>> I just installed BibDesk version 1.3.13, and it's giving me a hard
>>> time about the "local file format" I've been using for autofile. I
>>> use the cite key as the local file name, so my custom file format
>>> string was simply "%f{Cite Key}"... but now 1.3.13 says that this is
>>> invalid because "Format for local file requires a unique specifier."
>>> I'm fairly certain that cite keys are required to be unique, so I
>>> think this is a bug. Thoughts?
>>
>> Cite keys should be unique within a document, but it's not
>> guaranteed. AutoFile needs a specifier that lets it create a unique
>> filename on disk, since the filenames on your disk are independent of
>> your document and cite keys.
>>
>> I think there was a post on this yesterday as well.
>
>
> I know that this is intended (new) behavior. But it also breaks my old
> and proven naming scheme for the PDF files (I only have PDF files
> attached to all references; therefore, there is no need for a "unique
> identifier" as part of the label name or file name) in the same way it
> does for the original poster and, as a matter of fact my whole way of
> dealing with the PDF files. I have not had the time to look at the new
> version in detail (and probably will not have it in the near future)
> in order to find out how I can adapt my established to the new way of
> dealing with files. I must admit that I also do not like the fact that
> I have to select a reference now in order to see the PDF file and be
> able to click on it.
>
> Don't get me wrong: this is not a complaint. I followed the previous
> discussion and decided to stay quiet - so that's "my own fault".
>
> I just wanted to explain why I think that several other people are
> going to bring up problems like the one above, be it intended behavior
> or not.
>
> Best regards
> Holger
>
First of all: there *is* a definite need for it now, because it is
*possible* to add more than one files to an item, which all can be
auto-filed (the word 'possible' is crucial). So you need a way to
make the name unique, otherwise they would overwrite each other. It
is just a consequence of the new possibility.
It will *not* break your old naming scheme, it just has to be
modified a little bit.
In most cases when you already have a format that works, the only
thing you'd want to do is add a "%u0" of "%n0" just before the file
extension (I recommend your format always to end with "%u0%e" or "%n0%
e"). This will use your old scheme when possible, but creates unique
file names when needed.
Christiaan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
_______________________________________________
Bibdesk-users mailing list
Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
