On 27.01.2009, at 00:33, Richard Davis wrote:
I see that biblatex-chicago-notes has "customc":
"This is the entry type to use if the main focus of a reference is an
introduction,
afterword, or forward to a book, either by the same or a different
author."
No need for custom fields to solve
On 01/26/09 16:00, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
> Yes, but that's all about the window title, not the represented file.
> I can only find one vague reference to the represented file, and as
> soon as they get specific they forget to mention it.
Well, for my original comment I was actually going of
On 27 Jan 2009, at 12:51 AM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote:
> On 01/26/09 15:39, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
>
One reason for the swizzling was also because we use this in
various
windows (it really should be possible out-of-the-box to override
the
default behavior).
>>>
>>>
On 01/26/09 15:39, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
>>> One reason for the swizzling was also because we use this in various
>>> windows (it really should be possible out-of-the-box to override the
>>> default behavior).
>>
>> I think swizzling is used in a number of places for convenience
>> (I've do
On 27 Jan 2009, at 12:21 AM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/26/09 14:03, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
>
>>
>> On 26 Jan 2009, at 9:55 PM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/26/09 12:17, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
>>>
On 26 Jan 2009, at 9:10 PM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote:
I see that biblatex-chicago-notes has "customc":
"This is the entry type to use if the main focus of a reference is an
introduction,
afterword, or forward to a book, either by the same or a different author."
I'll give that a crack...
Richard Davis
2009/1/26 James Howison :
> Hope that others
On 01/26/09 14:03, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 9:55 PM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/26/09 12:17, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Jan 2009, at 9:10 PM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote:
>>>
On 01/26/09 11:51, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
On 26 Jan 2009, at 9:55 PM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/26/09 12:17, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
>
>>
>> On 26 Jan 2009, at 9:10 PM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/26/09 11:51, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
>>>
Correction, the file icon does not seem to be the one for the
li
Hope that others have more specific suggestions, but I think this
might be one of those areas in which bibtex's data model breaks down.
So you really just want to ask yourself, "what do I need it to look
like in my particular style" and then screw around with different
options until you ge
in my thesis I need to cite a guest foreword to a book
The book is authored by smith, but the foreword is authored by
milbank. There is no editor.
I don't know what publication type to make the foreword by milbank.
None of the options seem to fit.
Any tips?
Richard Davis
-
On 01/26/09 12:17, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 9:10 PM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote:
>
>> On 01/26/09 11:51, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
>>
>>> Correction, the file icon does not seem to be the one for the
>>> linked file, but
>>> for the .bib document file. This is not as i
On 26 Jan 2009, at 9:10 PM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote:
> On 01/26/09 11:51, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
>
>> Correction, the file icon does not seem to be the one for the
>> linked file, but
>> for the .bib document file. This is not as intended, probably some
>> OS update
>> has changed AppKit's
On 01/26/09 11:51, "Christiaan Hofman" wrote:
> Correction, the file icon does not seem to be the one for the linked file, but
> for the .bib document file. This is not as intended, probably some OS update
> has changed AppKit's behavior (I seem to recall that it worked even after
> Leopard was r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 26.01.2009 um 19:41 schrieb Christiaan Hofman:
>
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 8:22 PM, Jonas Zimmermann wrote:
>> I just stumbled across some unexpected behaviour: I had the info
>> window of a publication open and wanted to add it to a keyword group
>> (
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 8:22 PM, Jonas Zimmermann wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just stumbled across some unexpected behaviour: I had the info
>> window of a publication open and wanted to add
On 26 Jan 2009, at 8:22 PM, Jonas Zimmermann wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> I just stumbled across some unexpected behaviour: I had the info
> window of a publication open and wanted to add it to a keyword group
> (just like you can add a publication by dragg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I just stumbled across some unexpected behaviour: I had the info
window of a publication open and wanted to add it to a keyword group
(just like you can add a publication by dragging from the list). I
grabbed it at its icon as I thought this
On 26 Jan 2009, at 6:57 PM, Rolf Schmolling wrote:
Hi Christiaan,
sorry for my amateur ideas. Some questions: given that Skim would
overwrite any openmeta-tags when saving in context of making
annotations etc. on papers managed by BibDesk, would it be possible
to re-write those tags back
Hi Christiaan,
sorry for my amateur ideas. Some questions: given that Skim would
overwrite any openmeta-tags when saving in context of making
annotations etc. on papers managed by BibDesk, would it be possible to
re-write those tags back AFTER Skim did its work? Would that call for
BibDes
On 26 Jan 2009, at 5:29 PM, Mark Moll wrote:
> The PubMed search and import functionality in BibDesk is great, but it
> creates a large number of "bogus" fields. It also appends a period to
> the end of the title and the year field is sometimes used as a date
> field. I wrote a little AppleScript
The PubMed search and import functionality in BibDesk is great, but it
creates a large number of "bogus" fields. It also appends a period to
the end of the title and the year field is sometimes used as a date
field. I wrote a little AppleScript to clean up imported entries. I
know next to n
Moving this to the bibdesk list from the Skim list.
On 25 Jan 2009, at 5:54 PM, Rolf Schmolling wrote:
Hi, I support this idea! What about converting the keywords one
applies to Bibdesk-items into openmeta-tags (I mean in addition)
Thanks, Rolf
I'd indeed say this is more a feature for a m
On 26 Jan 2009, at 3:47 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of coloring the whole row background with an arbitrary
>> color. Even more compelling because nobody knows what the selection
>> color is. The examples you mention are
On Jan 26, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
I was thinking of coloring the whole row background with an arbitrary
color. Even more compelling because nobody knows what the selection
color is. The examples you mention are more exceptions (indeed, Apple
often doesn't follow it's own de
On 26 Jan 2009, at 3:00 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 1:25 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>> If you put it in a row, what's the real advantage over using a
>> rating field?
>
> Ratings are more limited in meaning. Static groups are what I'd use
> in BibDesk where I'd use c
25 matches
Mail list logo
