Re: [Bibdesk-users] column width does not stick
Just to report back: With today's nightly the column keeps its width. Thanks for the fix. alex Am 12.09.2007 um 13:32 schrieb Christiaan Hofman: > That's a bug, we don't update the default widths for the document > (only the global preferences) when a column width changes. Try if > todays nightly will fix it for you. > > Christiaan > > On 12 Sep 2007, at 11:39 AM, Alex Hamann wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think I saw that a couple of times before but found it hard to >> reproduce - now I think I can do that: >> My main window has the following columns: Author or Editor / BibTeX >> Type / Title / Year >> When I autosize the BibTeX Type column it becomes as narrow as it can >> (expected behaviour). >> As soon as I perform a search in the search bar the columns losse >> their previous width and expand way beyond the limits of my screen >> (12') - clearly not a big deal since the "Relevance" column is added. >> However: If I then cancel the search all columns go back to their >> previous width except the BibTeX Type column which remains far too >> wide (about twice its previous size) and pushes all other columns out >> of the screen again. >> >> Is it a bug? >> I am using Version 1.3.10 (v869) but saw similar behaviour in >> previous versions as well. >> >> cheers, >> >> alex >> >> - >> - >> --- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft >> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ >> ___ >> Bibdesk-users mailing list >> Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users > > > -- > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ > ___ > Bibdesk-users mailing list > Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users > = please avoid sending me word attachements; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html for details and background - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On 12 Sep 2007, at 7:04 PM, Chris Goedde wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2007, at 11:30 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>>
>> I wouldn't like to use relative paths as home-relatives. If we want
>> to support home-relative paths we should save those using tilde. I
>> think relative paths should be either document-relative or papers
>> folder-relative. So I think the latter would actually be better, as
>> it would also solve your problem.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, partly because I don't
> understand how BibDesk works (and maybe some other things) very well.
> All I'm trying to say is that I think that (to pull something from
> one of my bib files)
>
I basically mean: "~/path/to/a/file" is relative to Home, and "path/
to/a/file" is relative to the current base folder. Now the
interpretation of what "base folder" means is to be determined, but I
wouldn't say it should mean Home, I would rather say Papers Folder
(currently it means document folder).
> Local-Url = {file://localhost/Users/goedde/Documents/Work/Research/
> Papers/AJP64p4375.pdf}
>
> should be
>
> Local-Url = {file://~/Documents/Work/Research/Papers/AJP64p4375.pdf}
>
That wouldn't work, as it is an invalid URL. It's either a relative
or tilde-abbreviated path, or a full URL. (Also, the field is called
Local-Url, not Local-Path).
> (or whatever the right syntax is).
>
>> I don't understand this confusion.
>
> I believe that :-). But I'm still confused.
>
>> If it were radio buttons, indeed I
>> could understand it, that's why they're not radio buttons. It's not
>> either-or. The "use relative path" is additional (you can choose the
>> doc location as the current papers folder, and use absolute paths.).
>> It's just that we currently do not allow relative paths for auto-file
>> when you have a papers folder, as that would not really make sense.
>> Note that the preview is nothing more than a preview. It always shows
>> the tilde-abbreviated path, not the actual value of the Local-Url
>> field.
>
> I don't understand how "Use relative path" can be "additional",
> because it is greyed out if "Paper folders location" is checked. So
> it's an alternative to "Paper folders location"---you can't ever have
> both checked. (If option B is additional to option A, that would seem
> to imply that I can pick B in addition to A, no?) Also, that you can
> have both unchecked seems very odd to me. Isn't there still a
> location to autofile papers if both boxes are unchecked?
>
"Use relative path" means that the *field value* is a relative path.
The first checkbox and the papers folder location only determines
*where the file is put*, not the format of the Local-Url field (as
relative or absolute path).
> I don't really mean to argue, I'm just trying to explain how the
> current preference pain [:-)] appears to this particular user.
>
> I like Mike McCraken's suggestion; that makes sense to me. If a fixed
> location is chosen, then storing the Local-Url using ~ rather than
> the absolute path (as seems to be the case now) would also be good. I
> haven't gotten bitten by the two-machine problem, because I happen to
> use the same short name on both machines that I use BibDesk on.
>
> --
> Chris
I've just made the change suggested by Mike. That should make it a
bit more clear.
Currently by default the full URL is saved, unless you check the "Use
relative path" button.
Christiaan
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
Bibdesk-users mailing list
Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On Sep 12, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 09:48AM, "Rainer Sigwald"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 9/12/07, Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, using a document-relative path certainly makes sense in
>>> that situation. The question then becomes: should we keep this
>>> behavior, or break it now? (By break, I mean use home-relative
>>> instead of document-relative paths). Opinions from the users?
>>> What's easier for people to deal with? I think Mike may be
>>> responsible for the original implementation, so maybe he has
>>> comments.
>>
>> I strongly prefer the relative-to-bibfile implementation. I keep
>> both
>> my .bib file and my papers folder in a Subversion repository, which I
>> may check out to a different location periodically.
>>
>> I also have concerns about the new system with regard to
>> cross-platform compatibility and human readability. The current
>> system makes it quite easy to open the .bib file in (for example)
>> vim/emacs/Notepad and extrapolate from "local-url = {}" to find the
>> referenced file by hand. That doesn't seem possible with the
>> proposed
>> ASCII-armored Mac OS X alias. Is that correct, or am I
>> misunderstanding?
>
> This is correct. It should also be possible to keep the old system
> around, although I'm not sure how we'll manage autofile in that
> case. The only reason I can see for doing this is cross-platform
> compatibility; if you find using vi or (shudder) emacs easier than
> BibDesk on Mac OS, we're doing something wrong :).
>
> Incidentally, scripting would give you access to paths in the new
> system, so conceivably you could use a script hook to copy them to
> Local-Url when saving. No idea how practical that is.
FWIW, I favor keeping the document-relative paths as a backup for a
couple of reasons:
1)You can send an archive of a .bib file and the PDFs to someone
else; all of the local-url links still work if stored relatively.
2)Cross-platform compatibility: JabRef stores a "pdf" or "ps" field
that is relative to a "main PDF directory," so that if local-url is
copied to a "pdf" field (and the directory is correctly specified),
the links still work.
3)While you can't sling around your .bib file and have the links
still work (the advantage of home-directory-relative paths), the new
File Aliases method should fix that problem.
Slightly off-topic, 1) reminds me of a nice new feature of Endnote X
(yes, they actually added a new feature), which is to send a library
and its PDFs to a compressed archive which a user on the other end
can decompress and have all of the PDFs nicely linked. A similar
thing could be done with BibDesk fairly easily, I should link...
-AHM
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
Bibdesk-users mailing list
Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On 9/12/07, Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is correct. It should also be possible to keep the old system around, > although I'm not sure how we'll manage autofile in that case. The only > reason I can see for doing this is cross-platform compatibility; if you find > using vi or (shudder) emacs easier than BibDesk on Mac OS, we're doing > something wrong :). Oh goodness no! The only time I've ever not used BibDesk on Mac OS X was when I used TextMate to search-and-replace my local-urls to be correct relative paths. I'm mostly concerned about being able to pass on my bibfile and papers folder to my research group after I graduate. I'd like to leave something in an at least partially-usable form for my successors. > Incidentally, scripting would give you access to paths in the new system, so > conceivably you could use a script hook to copy them to Local-Url when > saving. No idea how practical that is. I'll do it if I have to, but compared to the current system which works exactly how I want it to it would be quite inconvenient :-) -R - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 10:00AM, "Christiaan Hofman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >What happens in the new scheme if someone changes the path and leaves >the alias data alone? Not possible. The relative path string would be incorporated into the opaque data blob, so users couldn't mess with it. >I think the best option is to interpret relative paths relative to >the papers folder. Then consider the 4 possible different choices for: > >1. file papers in a fixed location >2. file papers relative to the document > >a. use absolute path >b. use relative path [...] It makes sense...I think. My head is starting to hurt, though. I was hoping to reduce the number of options available, actually, but this seems to increase them :). adam - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On Sep 12, 2007, at 11:30 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
> I wouldn't like to use relative paths as home-relatives. If we want
> to support home-relative paths we should save those using tilde. I
> think relative paths should be either document-relative or papers
> folder-relative. So I think the latter would actually be better, as
> it would also solve your problem.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, partly because I don't
understand how BibDesk works (and maybe some other things) very well.
All I'm trying to say is that I think that (to pull something from
one of my bib files)
Local-Url = {file://localhost/Users/goedde/Documents/Work/Research/
Papers/AJP64p4375.pdf}
should be
Local-Url = {file://~/Documents/Work/Research/Papers/AJP64p4375.pdf}
(or whatever the right syntax is).
> I don't understand this confusion.
I believe that :-). But I'm still confused.
> If it were radio buttons, indeed I
> could understand it, that's why they're not radio buttons. It's not
> either-or. The "use relative path" is additional (you can choose the
> doc location as the current papers folder, and use absolute paths.).
> It's just that we currently do not allow relative paths for auto-file
> when you have a papers folder, as that would not really make sense.
> Note that the preview is nothing more than a preview. It always shows
> the tilde-abbreviated path, not the actual value of the Local-Url
> field.
I don't understand how "Use relative path" can be "additional",
because it is greyed out if "Paper folders location" is checked. So
it's an alternative to "Paper folders location"---you can't ever have
both checked. (If option B is additional to option A, that would seem
to imply that I can pick B in addition to A, no?) Also, that you can
have both unchecked seems very odd to me. Isn't there still a
location to autofile papers if both boxes are unchecked?
I don't really mean to argue, I'm just trying to explain how the
current preference pain [:-)] appears to this particular user.
I like Mike McCraken's suggestion; that makes sense to me. If a fixed
location is chosen, then storing the Local-Url using ~ rather than
the absolute path (as seems to be the case now) would also be good. I
haven't gotten bitten by the two-machine problem, because I happen to
use the same short name on both machines that I use BibDesk on.
--
Chris
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
Bibdesk-users mailing list
Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 09:48AM, "Rainer Sigwald" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 9/12/07, Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Okay, using a document-relative path certainly makes sense in that
>> situation. The question then becomes: should we keep this behavior, or
>> break it now? (By break, I mean use home-relative instead of
>> document-relative paths). Opinions from the users? What's easier for
>> people to deal with? I think Mike may be responsible for the original
>> implementation, so maybe he has comments.
>
>I strongly prefer the relative-to-bibfile implementation. I keep both
>my .bib file and my papers folder in a Subversion repository, which I
>may check out to a different location periodically.
>
>I also have concerns about the new system with regard to
>cross-platform compatibility and human readability. The current
>system makes it quite easy to open the .bib file in (for example)
>vim/emacs/Notepad and extrapolate from "local-url = {}" to find the
>referenced file by hand. That doesn't seem possible with the proposed
>ASCII-armored Mac OS X alias. Is that correct, or am I
>misunderstanding?
This is correct. It should also be possible to keep the old system around,
although I'm not sure how we'll manage autofile in that case. The only reason
I can see for doing this is cross-platform compatibility; if you find using vi
or (shudder) emacs easier than BibDesk on Mac OS, we're doing something wrong
:).
Incidentally, scripting would give you access to paths in the new system, so
conceivably you could use a script hook to copy them to Local-Url when saving.
No idea how practical that is.
adam
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
Bibdesk-users mailing list
Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On 12 Sep 2007, at 6:49 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 09:31AM, "Christiaan Hofman" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 12 Sep 2007, at 6:10 PM, Chris Goedde wrote: >> >>> On Sep 12, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: >>> Okay, using a document-relative path certainly makes sense in that situation. The question then becomes: should we keep this behavior, or break it now? (By break, I mean use home-relative instead of document-relative paths). Opinions from the users? What's easier for people to deal with? I think Mike may be responsible for the original implementation, so maybe he has comments. >>> >>> From my perspective, home-relative is much better than bib- >>> relative. >>> I store my master bib file where tex wants it, in ~/Library/texmf/ >>> bibtex/bib. I certainly don't want my pdfs there, so a bib-relative >>> path would just be walking back up the hierarchy and then down >>> into a >>> folder inside Documents. In that case it makes more sense to me to >>> just start from ~ . >>> >> >> I wouldn't like to use relative paths as home-relatives. If we want >> to support home-relative paths we should save those using tilde. I >> think relative paths should be either document-relative or papers >> folder-relative. So I think the latter would actually be better, as >> it would also solve your problem. > > In the new scheme, relative paths would be generated every time the > document is saved, relative to some base directory. My question is > whether we should always use the home directory as a base > directory, or always use the .bib as a base directory (or always > use the papers folder), regardless of whether we save it with > dotted directory notation or a tilde. > > adam What happens in the new scheme if someone changes the path and leaves the alias data alone? I think the best option is to interpret relative paths relative to the papers folder. Then consider the 4 possible different choices for: 1. file papers in a fixed location 2. file papers relative to the document a. use absolute path b. use relative path Then we get the following way we resolve those: 1a: Local-Url = file://localhost/path/to/papers/folder/filename.pdf look for /path/to/papers/folder/filename.pdf 1b: Local-Url = filename.pdf look for /path/to/papers/folder/filename.pdf 2a: Local-Url = file://localhost/path/to/document/folder/filename.pdf look for /path/to/document/folder/filename.pdf 2b: Local-Url = filename.pdf look for /path/to/document/folder/filename.pdf Wouldn't that make the most sense? This is almost the way we do it currently, only 1b would be interpreted differently (namely the same as 2b). Christiaan - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 09:38AM, "Michael McCracken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 9/12/07, Christiaan Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Unchecking means setting the papers folder to the empty string. This >> indicates that auto-file should use the document location. There is >> no separate pref for check/uncheck of this button, so there is no way >> to remember it. > >For what it's worth, the checkbox for 'Papers folder location' seems a >little confusing to me. The relative path situation has always confused me. In fact, I admit to using absolute paths because I've never bothered to really figure out the preferences for autofile, and because my work and home systems have different directory structures, so trying to convert everything to relative paths would be a big hassle. adam - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On 9/12/07, Michael McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For what it's worth, the checkbox for 'Papers folder location' seems a > little confusing to me. > The tooltips are much clearer, and it'd be best if the information in > the tooltip could be made obvious in the control text - that you're > choosing between filing in a single location or relative to the > document. > Perhaps the current 'papers folder location' setting should include a > radio button to choose between 'file papers relative to document' and > 'file papers in fixed location': > > (*) File papers in fixed location: [] (Choose…) > ( ) File papers relative to each document. That seems to make more sense than the current situation as well. I wanted .bib-relative autofiling all along but didn't realize it existed until something on the list implied it. Then I didn't convert my file correctly and only realized it when I checked out my SVN repository on a new machine (under a different username). I had to fix the bibfile "by hand" with a regex search-and-replace. -- Rainer Sigwald - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On Sep 12, 2007, at 08:41 , Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > On Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 07:41AM, "Christiaan Hofman" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 12 Sep 2007, at 4:25 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: >>> On Sep 12, 2007, at 04:34, Christiaan Hofman wrote: [snip] >> So you can easily move the .bib file together with the library of >> papers. It makes that the directory structure on the different >> systems do not need to be the same, it only matters how the papers >> are placed relative to the file. We could also make it relative to >> the Papers Folder, but that could break Local-Url fields that expect >> it to be different. So I think we never allowed that because of this >> backward compatibility. I think if we should allow something relative >> to the Home directory we should use ~ instead of a relative path. > > Okay, using a document-relative path certainly makes sense in that > situation. The question then becomes: should we keep this > behavior, or break it now? (By break, I mean use home-relative > instead of document-relative paths). Opinions from the users? > What's easier for people to deal with? I think Mike may be > responsible for the original implementation, so maybe he has comments. I don't know that relative paths can be made to work, unless the files in question are in the same directory or a directory "below" the document in question. I keep my docs scattered, in directories depending on context (courses, research, ToDo, ...). None are in my home directory, so "~/"-relative will only work if "~/" is always the same distance from "/" (e.g. "/X/justin" but not "/Volumes/X/justin"). Perhaps document-relative (or .bib-relative) is the best bet, short of using aliases (which only work on Mac OS; I'm not sure whether this is an issue since we're only talking about BibDesk). Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds --- If it weren't for carbon-14, I wouldn't date at all. --- - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 09:31AM, "Christiaan Hofman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 12 Sep 2007, at 6:10 PM, Chris Goedde wrote: > >> On Sep 12, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: >> >>> >>> Okay, using a document-relative path certainly makes sense in that >>> situation. The question then becomes: should we keep this >>> behavior, or break it now? (By break, I mean use home-relative >>> instead of document-relative paths). Opinions from the users? >>> What's easier for people to deal with? I think Mike may be >>> responsible for the original implementation, so maybe he has >>> comments. >> >> From my perspective, home-relative is much better than bib-relative. >> I store my master bib file where tex wants it, in ~/Library/texmf/ >> bibtex/bib. I certainly don't want my pdfs there, so a bib-relative >> path would just be walking back up the hierarchy and then down into a >> folder inside Documents. In that case it makes more sense to me to >> just start from ~ . >> > >I wouldn't like to use relative paths as home-relatives. If we want >to support home-relative paths we should save those using tilde. I >think relative paths should be either document-relative or papers >folder-relative. So I think the latter would actually be better, as >it would also solve your problem. In the new scheme, relative paths would be generated every time the document is saved, relative to some base directory. My question is whether we should always use the home directory as a base directory, or always use the .bib as a base directory (or always use the papers folder), regardless of whether we save it with dotted directory notation or a tilde. adam - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On 9/12/07, Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Okay, using a document-relative path certainly makes sense in that situation.
> The question then becomes: should we keep this behavior, or break it now?
> (By break, I mean use home-relative instead of document-relative paths).
> Opinions from the users? What's easier for people to deal with? I think
> Mike may be responsible for the original implementation, so maybe he has
> comments.
I strongly prefer the relative-to-bibfile implementation. I keep both
my .bib file and my papers folder in a Subversion repository, which I
may check out to a different location periodically.
I also have concerns about the new system with regard to
cross-platform compatibility and human readability. The current
system makes it quite easy to open the .bib file in (for example)
vim/emacs/Notepad and extrapolate from "local-url = {}" to find the
referenced file by hand. That doesn't seem possible with the proposed
ASCII-armored Mac OS X alias. Is that correct, or am I
misunderstanding?
By the way, since this is my first post to the list, I'd like to thank
everyone on the BibDesk team for producing an amazing piece of
software.
--
Rainer Sigwald
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
Bibdesk-users mailing list
Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On 9/12/07, Christiaan Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12 Sep 2007, at 6:10 PM, Chris Goedde wrote: > > > On Sep 12, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > > > >> > >> Okay, using a document-relative path certainly makes sense in that > >> situation. The question then becomes: should we keep this > >> behavior, or break it now? (By break, I mean use home-relative > >> instead of document-relative paths). Opinions from the users? > >> What's easier for people to deal with? I think Mike may be > >> responsible for the original implementation, so maybe he has > >> comments. > > > > From my perspective, home-relative is much better than bib-relative. > > I store my master bib file where tex wants it, in ~/Library/texmf/ > > bibtex/bib. I certainly don't want my pdfs there, so a bib-relative > > path would just be walking back up the hierarchy and then down into a > > folder inside Documents. In that case it makes more sense to me to > > just start from ~ . > > > > I wouldn't like to use relative paths as home-relatives. If we want > to support home-relative paths we should save those using tilde. I > think relative paths should be either document-relative or papers > folder-relative. So I think the latter would actually be better, as > it would also solve your problem. > > > In looking at the current preferences, I'm a little confused about > > this discussion. Under "AutoFile Preferences" it seems that I can > > choose either between a "Papers folder location" or "Use relative > > path for Local-Url". A couple comments. First, shouldn't these two > > choices really be radio buttons rather than checkboxes because you > > only have an either-or choice? (At first, I was confused why the "Use > > relative path for Local-Url" was greyed out.) Actually, I see that > > they can both be unchecked, which seems a little strange. In that > > case, the preview window shows ~/blah.pdf as the location. Isn't that > > really a subcategory of "Papers folder location"? Do any users > > actually uncheck both those boxes? > > > > I don't understand this confusion. If it were radio buttons, indeed I > could understand it, that's why they're not radio buttons. It's not > either-or. The "use relative path" is additional (you can choose the > doc location as the current papers folder, and use absolute paths.). > It's just that we currently do not allow relative paths for auto-file > when you have a papers folder, as that would not really make sense. > Note that the preview is nothing more than a preview. It always shows > the tilde-abbreviated path, not the actual value of the Local-Url field. > > > Second, why not just make "Papers folder location" always be relative > > to ~ (rather than an absolute path) and keep the "Use relative path > > for Local-Url" relative to the current document? Wouldn't that solve > > the current problem while keeping backwards compatibility? Obviously, > > I'm missing something here ... > > > > It's not really relevant whether the papers folder path is relative. > It's only relevant where we put the files and what path is used in > the Local-Url field. We do a lot of resolving for the paths, so > relative or not, the pappers folder is always resolved to a full path > during the auto-file process. > > > Lastly, if I uncheck "Papers folder location", BibDesk forgets the > > current location, and I have to relocate it when I check the box > > again. It would be very nice if BibDesk remembered that location even > > if the button is unchecked. > > > > -- > > Chris > > > > Unchecking means setting the papers folder to the empty string. This > indicates that auto-file should use the document location. There is > no separate pref for check/uncheck of this button, so there is no way > to remember it. For what it's worth, the checkbox for 'Papers folder location' seems a little confusing to me. The tooltips are much clearer, and it'd be best if the information in the tooltip could be made obvious in the control text - that you're choosing between filing in a single location or relative to the document. Perhaps the current 'papers folder location' setting should include a radio button to choose between 'file papers relative to document' and 'file papers in fixed location': (*) File papers in fixed location: [] (Choose…) ( ) File papers relative to each document. -- Michael McCracken UCSD CSE PhD Candidate research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/ misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On 12 Sep 2007, at 6:10 PM, Chris Goedde wrote: > On Sep 12, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > >> >> Okay, using a document-relative path certainly makes sense in that >> situation. The question then becomes: should we keep this >> behavior, or break it now? (By break, I mean use home-relative >> instead of document-relative paths). Opinions from the users? >> What's easier for people to deal with? I think Mike may be >> responsible for the original implementation, so maybe he has >> comments. > > From my perspective, home-relative is much better than bib-relative. > I store my master bib file where tex wants it, in ~/Library/texmf/ > bibtex/bib. I certainly don't want my pdfs there, so a bib-relative > path would just be walking back up the hierarchy and then down into a > folder inside Documents. In that case it makes more sense to me to > just start from ~ . > I wouldn't like to use relative paths as home-relatives. If we want to support home-relative paths we should save those using tilde. I think relative paths should be either document-relative or papers folder-relative. So I think the latter would actually be better, as it would also solve your problem. > In looking at the current preferences, I'm a little confused about > this discussion. Under "AutoFile Preferences" it seems that I can > choose either between a "Papers folder location" or "Use relative > path for Local-Url". A couple comments. First, shouldn't these two > choices really be radio buttons rather than checkboxes because you > only have an either-or choice? (At first, I was confused why the "Use > relative path for Local-Url" was greyed out.) Actually, I see that > they can both be unchecked, which seems a little strange. In that > case, the preview window shows ~/blah.pdf as the location. Isn't that > really a subcategory of "Papers folder location"? Do any users > actually uncheck both those boxes? > I don't understand this confusion. If it were radio buttons, indeed I could understand it, that's why they're not radio buttons. It's not either-or. The "use relative path" is additional (you can choose the doc location as the current papers folder, and use absolute paths.). It's just that we currently do not allow relative paths for auto-file when you have a papers folder, as that would not really make sense. Note that the preview is nothing more than a preview. It always shows the tilde-abbreviated path, not the actual value of the Local-Url field. > Second, why not just make "Papers folder location" always be relative > to ~ (rather than an absolute path) and keep the "Use relative path > for Local-Url" relative to the current document? Wouldn't that solve > the current problem while keeping backwards compatibility? Obviously, > I'm missing something here ... > It's not really relevant whether the papers folder path is relative. It's only relevant where we put the files and what path is used in the Local-Url field. We do a lot of resolving for the paths, so relative or not, the pappers folder is always resolved to a full path during the auto-file process. > Lastly, if I uncheck "Papers folder location", BibDesk forgets the > current location, and I have to relocate it when I check the box > again. It would be very nice if BibDesk remembered that location even > if the button is unchecked. > > -- > Chris > Unchecking means setting the papers folder to the empty string. This indicates that auto-file should use the document location. There is no separate pref for check/uncheck of this button, so there is no way to remember it. Christiaan - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On 9/12/07, Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 07:41AM, "Christiaan Hofman" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >On 12 Sep 2007, at 4:25 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > > > >> > >> On Sep 12, 2007, at 04:34, Christiaan Hofman wrote: > >> > >>> BTW, we may have a big change in the way we handle local files in the > >>> (near?) future. And I'm not sure if saving relative paths will be > >>> compatible with those changes. > >> > >> I was planning to store a relative path as fallback along with the > >> alias for this situation. > >> > >> Thinking about this again, it may be cleaner to make them relative to > >> the home directory instead of the .bib file. Do you recall why they > >> are .bib relative now? > >> > >> adam > >> > > > >So you can easily move the .bib file together with the library of > >papers. It makes that the directory structure on the different > >systems do not need to be the same, it only matters how the papers > >are placed relative to the file. We could also make it relative to > >the Papers Folder, but that could break Local-Url fields that expect > >it to be different. So I think we never allowed that because of this > >backward compatibility. I think if we should allow something relative > >to the Home directory we should use ~ instead of a relative path. > > Okay, using a document-relative path certainly makes sense in that situation. > The question then becomes: should we keep this behavior, or break it now? > (By break, I mean use home-relative instead of document-relative paths). > Opinions from the users? What's easier for people to deal with? I think > Mike may be responsible for the original implementation, so maybe he has > comments. Amen for email archives. You asked this same question in December 2005, and apparently 2005 Mike knew more than I do: You wrote: >From looking at the code, it appears that you can also use a .bib file-relative path; I'm not sure why, actually. Offhand it seems that the papers folder would be a better choice for resolving relative paths. The other developers might be able to shed some light on that? I wrote: >Light: someone requested this feature so that they could move bib files and papers around as a single package. For example, you could have this structure: >papers/all.bib >papers/pdf/<*.pdf is here> >then write pdf/p157-fein.pdf in a Local-Url, and if you move your papers directory to a different machine (and different user, location, whatever) you don't have a ton of broken links. >What this means is that any relative path makes it search for the file starting in the same directory as the bib file. I kind of like this scheme (I don't use it, but I apparently thought it was a good enough idea to implement it) but from what I can tell, it's not well known. I have no idea how many people use it. > I like the ~ path because it gives me a fixed reference frame, and I can move > the .bib file without breaking anything else...but since the plan is to use > aliases, this problem will go away. In code, I guess the file objects > (BDSKFile) could be instantiated by the BibItem with any relative path base > as an argument, which would then be used to construct a full path in the case > of the alias not working. So there's no argument either way from the code > perspective. > > adam > > adam > > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ > ___ > Bibdesk-users mailing list > Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users > -- Michael McCracken UCSD CSE PhD Candidate research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/ misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On Sep 12, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > > Okay, using a document-relative path certainly makes sense in that > situation. The question then becomes: should we keep this > behavior, or break it now? (By break, I mean use home-relative > instead of document-relative paths). Opinions from the users? > What's easier for people to deal with? I think Mike may be > responsible for the original implementation, so maybe he has comments. From my perspective, home-relative is much better than bib-relative. I store my master bib file where tex wants it, in ~/Library/texmf/ bibtex/bib. I certainly don't want my pdfs there, so a bib-relative path would just be walking back up the hierarchy and then down into a folder inside Documents. In that case it makes more sense to me to just start from ~ . In looking at the current preferences, I'm a little confused about this discussion. Under "AutoFile Preferences" it seems that I can choose either between a "Papers folder location" or "Use relative path for Local-Url". A couple comments. First, shouldn't these two choices really be radio buttons rather than checkboxes because you only have an either-or choice? (At first, I was confused why the "Use relative path for Local-Url" was greyed out.) Actually, I see that they can both be unchecked, which seems a little strange. In that case, the preview window shows ~/blah.pdf as the location. Isn't that really a subcategory of "Papers folder location"? Do any users actually uncheck both those boxes? Second, why not just make "Papers folder location" always be relative to ~ (rather than an absolute path) and keep the "Use relative path for Local-Url" relative to the current document? Wouldn't that solve the current problem while keeping backwards compatibility? Obviously, I'm missing something here ... Lastly, if I uncheck "Papers folder location", BibDesk forgets the current location, and I have to relocate it when I check the box again. It would be very nice if BibDesk remembered that location even if the button is unchecked. -- Chris - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 07:41AM, "Christiaan Hofman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 12 Sep 2007, at 4:25 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > >> >> On Sep 12, 2007, at 04:34, Christiaan Hofman wrote: >> >>> BTW, we may have a big change in the way we handle local files in the >>> (near?) future. And I'm not sure if saving relative paths will be >>> compatible with those changes. >> >> I was planning to store a relative path as fallback along with the >> alias for this situation. >> >> Thinking about this again, it may be cleaner to make them relative to >> the home directory instead of the .bib file. Do you recall why they >> are .bib relative now? >> >> adam >> > >So you can easily move the .bib file together with the library of >papers. It makes that the directory structure on the different >systems do not need to be the same, it only matters how the papers >are placed relative to the file. We could also make it relative to >the Papers Folder, but that could break Local-Url fields that expect >it to be different. So I think we never allowed that because of this >backward compatibility. I think if we should allow something relative >to the Home directory we should use ~ instead of a relative path. Okay, using a document-relative path certainly makes sense in that situation. The question then becomes: should we keep this behavior, or break it now? (By break, I mean use home-relative instead of document-relative paths). Opinions from the users? What's easier for people to deal with? I think Mike may be responsible for the original implementation, so maybe he has comments. I like the ~ path because it gives me a fixed reference frame, and I can move the .bib file without breaking anything else...but since the plan is to use aliases, this problem will go away. In code, I guess the file objects (BDSKFile) could be instantiated by the BibItem with any relative path base as an argument, which would then be used to construct a full path in the case of the alias not working. So there's no argument either way from the code perspective. adam adam - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On 12 Sep 2007, at 4:25 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > > On Sep 12, 2007, at 04:34, Christiaan Hofman wrote: > >> BTW, we may have a big change in the way we handle local files in the >> (near?) future. And I'm not sure if saving relative paths will be >> compatible with those changes. > > I was planning to store a relative path as fallback along with the > alias for this situation. > > Thinking about this again, it may be cleaner to make them relative to > the home directory instead of the .bib file. Do you recall why they > are .bib relative now? > > adam > So you can easily move the .bib file together with the library of papers. It makes that the directory structure on the different systems do not need to be the same, it only matters how the papers are placed relative to the file. We could also make it relative to the Papers Folder, but that could break Local-Url fields that expect it to be different. So I think we never allowed that because of this backward compatibility. I think if we should allow something relative to the Home directory we should use ~ instead of a relative path. Christiaan - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
On Sep 12, 2007, at 04:34, Christiaan Hofman wrote: > BTW, we may have a big change in the way we handle local files in the > (near?) future. And I'm not sure if saving relative paths will be > compatible with those changes. I was planning to store a relative path as fallback along with the alias for this situation. Thinking about this again, it may be cleaner to make them relative to the home directory instead of the .bib file. Do you recall why they are .bib relative now? adam - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] relative paths / 2 machines
I would really prefer relative paths too. Absolute paths would limit the utility of autofiling to one of the three machines I use. I'd prefer to be able to sync my .bib file along with all the linked pdfs and have it work on any machine. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
Hello Christiaan, Actually I would really prefer a system where the file links are relative. Thus far I don't use the auto-file because of this. Between me and my wife we have papers on machines at home and work (all with different account names unfortunately) and like to keep the our respective bib files in sync, as we primarily use Bibtex to keep track of papers we've read and use for research. Mukund On 9/12/07, Christiaan Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BTW, we may have a big change in the way we handle local files in the > (near?) future. And I'm not sure if saving relative paths will be > compatible with those changes. > > Christiaan > > On 12 Sep 2007, at 12:53 PM, Andreas Reinecke wrote: > > > Well, you got me. I was not aware that on one of the three computers > > I work with preference settings (see below) were different from the > > others, which lead to my false statement. > > sorry > > andreas > > > > Am 12.09.2007 um 11:02 schrieb Christiaan Hofman: > > > >> That's not correct. The tilde is there only for display, internally > >> the full path is used. > >> > >> If you uncheck "Papers folder location" and check "Use relative path > >> for Local-Url" then the auto-file feature will use a relative path > >> for the Local-Url field (and only then). However, note that this is > >> relative to the .bib file. > >> > >> Christiaan > >> > >> On 12 Sep 2007, at 9:39 AM, Andreas Reinecke wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Michael, > >>> I work on different machines with specific account names as you do. > >>> However, I do not encounter your problem. > >>> My autofile preference setting are: > >>> > >>> checkbox "papers folder location" tagged, with an entry into the > >>> neighbouring field like "~/BIOSAFE/Literatur" which in my case is > >>> the > >>> path generated when you select it via the "choose" button. The ~ > >>> obviously refers to your local user folder irrespective of the > >>> account's name. > >>> > >>> cheers > >>> andreas > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.ice.mpg.de > >>> > >>> > >>> Am 12.09.2007 um 03:51 schrieb Michael Green: > >>> > I have home and work machines. I'm sold on the utility of using > BibDesk to automatically file pdfs. And the default ~/Documents/ > Papers directory is fine with me. > > However, the paths that are stored with each entry are machine > specific. > > e.g. file://localhost/Users/MyHomeAccountName/Documents/Papers/ > paper.pdf. > > My work machine has a different account name, so this fails when > I'm > on that machine. And vice versa, of course. > > I have the feeling that it should be possible to use the relative > path option to specify a path to ~/Documents/Papers that would work > on either machine. But I don't know how to accomplish that, or, > indeed, if it's possible at all. > > Thanks! > > Michael Green > > --- > - > - > - > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ > ___ > Bibdesk-users mailing list > Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> - > >>> - > >>> --- > >>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > >>> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ > >>> ___ > >>> Bibdesk-users mailing list > >>> Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net > >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users > >> > >> > >> - > >> - > >> --- > >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > >> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ > >> ___ > >> Bibdesk-users mailing list > >> Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users > > > > > > -- > > --- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ > > ___ > > Bibdesk-users mailing list > > Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users > > > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdm
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
BTW, we may have a big change in the way we handle local files in the (near?) future. And I'm not sure if saving relative paths will be compatible with those changes. Christiaan On 12 Sep 2007, at 12:53 PM, Andreas Reinecke wrote: > Well, you got me. I was not aware that on one of the three computers > I work with preference settings (see below) were different from the > others, which lead to my false statement. > sorry > andreas > > Am 12.09.2007 um 11:02 schrieb Christiaan Hofman: > >> That's not correct. The tilde is there only for display, internally >> the full path is used. >> >> If you uncheck "Papers folder location" and check "Use relative path >> for Local-Url" then the auto-file feature will use a relative path >> for the Local-Url field (and only then). However, note that this is >> relative to the .bib file. >> >> Christiaan >> >> On 12 Sep 2007, at 9:39 AM, Andreas Reinecke wrote: >> >>> Hi Michael, >>> I work on different machines with specific account names as you do. >>> However, I do not encounter your problem. >>> My autofile preference setting are: >>> >>> checkbox "papers folder location" tagged, with an entry into the >>> neighbouring field like "~/BIOSAFE/Literatur" which in my case is >>> the >>> path generated when you select it via the "choose" button. The ~ >>> obviously refers to your local user folder irrespective of the >>> account's name. >>> >>> cheers >>> andreas >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.ice.mpg.de >>> >>> >>> Am 12.09.2007 um 03:51 schrieb Michael Green: >>> I have home and work machines. I'm sold on the utility of using BibDesk to automatically file pdfs. And the default ~/Documents/ Papers directory is fine with me. However, the paths that are stored with each entry are machine specific. e.g. file://localhost/Users/MyHomeAccountName/Documents/Papers/ paper.pdf. My work machine has a different account name, so this fails when I'm on that machine. And vice versa, of course. I have the feeling that it should be possible to use the relative path option to specify a path to ~/Documents/Papers that would work on either machine. But I don't know how to accomplish that, or, indeed, if it's possible at all. Thanks! Michael Green --- - - - --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> - >>> --- >>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft >>> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ >>> ___ >>> Bibdesk-users mailing list >>> Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users >> >> >> - >> - >> --- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft >> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ >> ___ >> Bibdesk-users mailing list >> Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users > > > -- > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ > ___ > Bibdesk-users mailing list > Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] column width does not stick
That's a bug, we don't update the default widths for the document (only the global preferences) when a column width changes. Try if todays nightly will fix it for you. Christiaan On 12 Sep 2007, at 11:39 AM, Alex Hamann wrote: > Hi, > > I think I saw that a couple of times before but found it hard to > reproduce - now I think I can do that: > My main window has the following columns: Author or Editor / BibTeX > Type / Title / Year > When I autosize the BibTeX Type column it becomes as narrow as it can > (expected behaviour). > As soon as I perform a search in the search bar the columns losse > their previous width and expand way beyond the limits of my screen > (12') - clearly not a big deal since the "Relevance" column is added. > However: If I then cancel the search all columns go back to their > previous width except the BibTeX Type column which remains far too > wide (about twice its previous size) and pushes all other columns out > of the screen again. > > Is it a bug? > I am using Version 1.3.10 (v869) but saw similar behaviour in > previous versions as well. > > cheers, > > alex > > -- > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ > ___ > Bibdesk-users mailing list > Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
Well, you got me. I was not aware that on one of the three computers I work with preference settings (see below) were different from the others, which lead to my false statement. sorry andreas Am 12.09.2007 um 11:02 schrieb Christiaan Hofman: > That's not correct. The tilde is there only for display, internally > the full path is used. > > If you uncheck "Papers folder location" and check "Use relative path > for Local-Url" then the auto-file feature will use a relative path > for the Local-Url field (and only then). However, note that this is > relative to the .bib file. > > Christiaan > > On 12 Sep 2007, at 9:39 AM, Andreas Reinecke wrote: > >> Hi Michael, >> I work on different machines with specific account names as you do. >> However, I do not encounter your problem. >> My autofile preference setting are: >> >> checkbox "papers folder location" tagged, with an entry into the >> neighbouring field like "~/BIOSAFE/Literatur" which in my case is the >> path generated when you select it via the "choose" button. The ~ >> obviously refers to your local user folder irrespective of the >> account's name. >> >> cheers >> andreas >> >> >> >> http://www.ice.mpg.de >> >> >> Am 12.09.2007 um 03:51 schrieb Michael Green: >> >>> I have home and work machines. I'm sold on the utility of using >>> BibDesk to automatically file pdfs. And the default ~/Documents/ >>> Papers directory is fine with me. >>> >>> However, the paths that are stored with each entry are machine >>> specific. >>> >>> e.g. file://localhost/Users/MyHomeAccountName/Documents/Papers/ >>> paper.pdf. >>> >>> My work machine has a different account name, so this fails when I'm >>> on that machine. And vice versa, of course. >>> >>> I have the feeling that it should be possible to use the relative >>> path option to specify a path to ~/Documents/Papers that would work >>> on either machine. But I don't know how to accomplish that, or, >>> indeed, if it's possible at all. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Michael Green >>> >>> >>> - >>> - >>> --- >>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft >>> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ >>> ___ >>> Bibdesk-users mailing list >>> Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users >> >> >> - >> - >> --- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft >> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ >> ___ >> Bibdesk-users mailing list >> Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users > > > -- > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ > ___ > Bibdesk-users mailing list > Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
[Bibdesk-users] column width does not stick
Hi, I think I saw that a couple of times before but found it hard to reproduce - now I think I can do that: My main window has the following columns: Author or Editor / BibTeX Type / Title / Year When I autosize the BibTeX Type column it becomes as narrow as it can (expected behaviour). As soon as I perform a search in the search bar the columns losse their previous width and expand way beyond the limits of my screen (12') - clearly not a big deal since the "Relevance" column is added. However: If I then cancel the search all columns go back to their previous width except the BibTeX Type column which remains far too wide (about twice its previous size) and pushes all other columns out of the screen again. Is it a bug? I am using Version 1.3.10 (v869) but saw similar behaviour in previous versions as well. cheers, alex - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
That's not correct. The tilde is there only for display, internally the full path is used. If you uncheck "Papers folder location" and check "Use relative path for Local-Url" then the auto-file feature will use a relative path for the Local-Url field (and only then). However, note that this is relative to the .bib file. Christiaan On 12 Sep 2007, at 9:39 AM, Andreas Reinecke wrote: > Hi Michael, > I work on different machines with specific account names as you do. > However, I do not encounter your problem. > My autofile preference setting are: > > checkbox "papers folder location" tagged, with an entry into the > neighbouring field like "~/BIOSAFE/Literatur" which in my case is the > path generated when you select it via the "choose" button. The ~ > obviously refers to your local user folder irrespective of the > account's name. > > cheers > andreas > > > > http://www.ice.mpg.de > > > Am 12.09.2007 um 03:51 schrieb Michael Green: > >> I have home and work machines. I'm sold on the utility of using >> BibDesk to automatically file pdfs. And the default ~/Documents/ >> Papers directory is fine with me. >> >> However, the paths that are stored with each entry are machine >> specific. >> >> e.g. file://localhost/Users/MyHomeAccountName/Documents/Papers/ >> paper.pdf. >> >> My work machine has a different account name, so this fails when I'm >> on that machine. And vice versa, of course. >> >> I have the feeling that it should be possible to use the relative >> path option to specify a path to ~/Documents/Papers that would work >> on either machine. But I don't know how to accomplish that, or, >> indeed, if it's possible at all. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Michael Green >> >> - >> - >> --- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft >> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ >> ___ >> Bibdesk-users mailing list >> Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users > > > -- > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ > ___ > Bibdesk-users mailing list > Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Using autofile with two machines
Hi Michael, I work on different machines with specific account names as you do. However, I do not encounter your problem. My autofile preference setting are: checkbox "papers folder location" tagged, with an entry into the neighbouring field like "~/BIOSAFE/Literatur" which in my case is the path generated when you select it via the "choose" button. The ~ obviously refers to your local user folder irrespective of the account's name. cheers andreas http://www.ice.mpg.de Am 12.09.2007 um 03:51 schrieb Michael Green: > I have home and work machines. I'm sold on the utility of using > BibDesk to automatically file pdfs. And the default ~/Documents/ > Papers directory is fine with me. > > However, the paths that are stored with each entry are machine > specific. > > e.g. file://localhost/Users/MyHomeAccountName/Documents/Papers/ > paper.pdf. > > My work machine has a different account name, so this fails when I'm > on that machine. And vice versa, of course. > > I have the feeling that it should be possible to use the relative > path option to specify a path to ~/Documents/Papers that would work > on either machine. But I don't know how to accomplish that, or, > indeed, if it's possible at all. > > Thanks! > > Michael Green > > -- > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ > ___ > Bibdesk-users mailing list > Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
