On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Miguel Ortiz Lombardia wrote:
In fact, someone had already filed a bug report in November, but it was closed apparently with no other solution than requiring users to use a previous version of BibDesk (1.3.17 or earlier) to do the import from PubMed, which is, in my opinion, not very useful. This is: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2333712&group_id=61487&atid=497423 I added a comment a few days ago, but admittedly, it's probably not very useful either to add a comment to a closed bug report.
Is anyone else not getting notified of tracker updates? I didn't notice your comment. My comment was also added after Christiaan rejected the bug report.
Anyway, I suspect the motivation for the changes that broke PubMed dates came from this:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1966538&group_id=61487&atid=497423PubMed's Medline is basically a mutant form of RIS, so BibDesk shares much of the parsing code between those types. The original date parsing worked for Medline because I only cared about extracting the year for BibTeX, and most of the RIS I was dealing with had incorrectly formatted dates anyway. The original contents were preserved for manual extraction if needed (or should have been).
FWIW, I'd suggest that Greg's patch or the original code should probably be used for PubMed, since this sounds like pretty serious breakage for PubMed.
-- Adam
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
