On Jan 7, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2013, at 3:28, Dr. Adam M. Goldstein PhD MSLIS wrote:
>
>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 5:17 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>>
>>
>> I followed the steps above, or at least, tried my best. It didn't work. The
>> papers remained linke
On Jan 7, 2013, at 3:28, Dr. Adam M. Goldstein PhD MSLIS wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2012, at 5:17 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>> This is not consistent. Are the linked files pointing to Papers or
>> Papers-old?
>>
>> And what happens with your .bib file? Is it on the volume where the old
>> Pape
On Dec 11, 2012, at 5:17 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
> This is not consistent. Are the linked files pointing to Papers or Papers-old?
>
> And what happens with your .bib file? Is it on the volume where the old
> Papers folder is, and where the Papers-WC will be? Is it also in the
> repository
On Dec 11, 2012, at 4:34, Dr. Adam M. Goldstein PhD MSLIS wrote:
>
> On Dec 10, 2012, at 7:17 PM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 0:04, Dr. Adam M. Goldstein PhD MSLIS wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Now I would like to create a working copy of the directory, and have the
>>> records
On Dec 10, 2012, at 7:17 PM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2012, at 0:04, Dr. Adam M. Goldstein PhD MSLIS wrote:
>
>
>> Now I would like to create a working copy of the directory, and have the
>> records in my bibliography point to the papers in the repository. I am not
>> sure ho
On Dec 11, 2012, at 0:04, Dr. Adam M. Goldstein PhD MSLIS wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I just uploaded my Papers directory to an svn repository. I have the autofile
> preference set to put papers there. (To be precise, it's ~/Documents/Papers.)
Autofile has absolutely nothing to do with how linked file
Hi all
I just uploaded my Papers directory to an svn repository. I have the autofile
preference set to put papers there. (To be precise, it's ~/Documents/Papers.)
Now I would like to create a working copy of the directory, and have the
records in my bibliography point to the papers in the repos
On Aug 12, 2011, at 7:29 PM, Paulo Carreira wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> I have found that the filing method that works best for me is to arrange
> papers on disk by Subject. I have a top folder named "Papers" with
> sub-folders "Papers/Subject A", "Papers/Subject B", ... and so on. I'm a
> new use
Hi everyone.
I have found that the filing method that works best for me is to arrange
papers on disk by Subject. I have a top folder named "Papers" with
sub-folders "Papers/Subject A", "Papers/Subject B", ... and so on. I'm a
new user to Bibdesk and I would like to use Autofiling to keep help me
Whoops, the previous email still contained the debugging code (display
dialog). The following removes that.
On 2008-02-08, at 2:21 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Friday, February 08, 2008, at 02:12PM, "Jan Erik Moström" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>> Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2008-02-08, at 2:21 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Friday, February 08, 2008, at 02:12PM, "Jan Erik Moström" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>> Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-02-08 14.00
>>
>>> The old format is unsupported as of 1.3.13. Some of the UI is still
>>> present (you ca
On Friday, February 08, 2008, at 02:12PM, "Jan Erik Moström" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-02-08 14.00
>
>>The old format is unsupported as of 1.3.13. Some of the UI is still
>>present (you can display legacy file/URL icons in the main table), but
>>autofile
Christiaan Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-02-09 00.06
>>These people are running Macs, Windows and Linux/Unix. If we
>
>If they use BibDesk and use the same relative paths, they can.
They don't.
OK, now I know. I'll think about how to handle this.
jem
--
Jan Erik Moström, w
On 8 Feb 2008, at 11:58 PM, Jan Erik Moström wrote:
> Christiaan Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-02-08 23.39
>
>> I don't see the problem, as they can simply ignore what they
>> see, or get used to it.
>
> Perhaps I've misunderstood something, so please let me make sure
> that I've understood ever
Christiaan Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-02-08 23.39
>I don't see the problem, as they can simply ignore what they
>see, or get used to it.
Perhaps I've misunderstood something, so please let me make sure
that I've understood everything correctly. Sorry for being so
tedious, I just want to ma
On 8 Feb 2008, at 11:04 PM, Jan Erik Moström wrote:
> Christiaan Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-02-08 22.51
>
>>> If I understand this correctly, the local-url and url usage will
>>> not be supported in the future and if I want to keep the old
>>> format then I have to manage this manually.
>>>
>>
Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-02-08 14.00
>The old format is unsupported as of 1.3.13. Some of the UI is still
>present (you can display legacy file/URL icons in the main table), but
>autofile is only supported in the new scheme.
OK, thanks for the answer. I'll have to think about what
Christiaan Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-02-08 22.51
>>If I understand this correctly, the local-url and url usage will
>>not be supported in the future and if I want to keep the old
>>format then I have to manage this manually.
>>
>>The reason I would like to see this is that when I share the
>>b
On Friday, February 08, 2008, at 01:28PM, "Jan Erik Moström" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I tried finding an answer to this in the archive and the manual
>but I couldn't find anything definitive, sorry if I missed something.
>
>I've been using the local-file url to hold a reference to the
>PDF
On 8 Feb 2008, at 10:28 PM, Jan Erik Moström wrote:
> I tried finding an answer to this in the archive and the manual
> but I couldn't find anything definitive, sorry if I missed something.
>
> I've been using the local-file url to hold a reference to the
> PDF to the paper. This has worked well
I tried finding an answer to this in the archive and the manual
but I couldn't find anything definitive, sorry if I missed something.
I've been using the local-file url to hold a reference to the
PDF to the paper. This has worked well and have allowed my to
share the references (through subvers
In order to understand why Christiaan might have written his reply in
a somewhat harsher tone, you should search the archives of this list
and see how often we had this question in the last weeks.
It becomes annoying to have to write the same answers and
explanations over and over again.
Goo
Alexander H. Montgomery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-02-08 12.28
>Because if you attach more than one file to a given
>publication, they can't be named the same thing. Hence the
>file name specifier requires a unique specifier in addition to
>the cite key.
OK, I didn't realize that it was possible
On Friday, February 08, 2008, at 12:14PM, "Jan Erik Moström" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christiaan Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-02-08 20.59
>
>>Read the alert you get and don't complain. Unique for a cite
>>key is not unique for a file.
>
>Since I'm so *incredible stupid* then you could perh
And that's just a tip of the iceberg, though the main reason we now
enforce it. A cite key is generated unique *within the items of a
document*, while a file name is generated unique *in your file
system*. These are completely different criteria. Moreover, when a
file name is generated, the
Because if you attach more than one file to a given publication, they
can't be named the same thing. Hence the file name specifier requires
a unique specifier in addition to the cite key.
-AHM
On 2008-02-08, at 12:13 PM, Jan Erik Moström wrote:
> Christiaan Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-02-0
Christiaan Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-02-08 20.59
>Read the alert you get and don't complain. Unique for a cite
>key is not unique for a file.
Since I'm so *incredible stupid* then you could perhaps explain
why a unique city key wouldn't generate a unique file name when
I use it in the fil
Read the alert you get and don't complain. Unique for a cite key is
not unique for a file.
Sigh.
Christiaan
On 8 Feb 2008, at 8:41 PM, Jan Erik Moström wrote:
> I just downloaded and launched 1.3.14, and it complained that my
> naming for autofiling wouldn't generate a unique name. I've been
>
I just downloaded and launched 1.3.14, and it complained that my
naming for autofiling wouldn't generate a unique name. I've been
using "%f{Cite Key}%e", why doesn't this generate a unique name?
The cite key is unique.
jem
--
Jan Erik Moström, www.mostrom.pp.se
-
great, thx
a.
Am 27.01.2008 um 19:17 schrieb Christiaan Hofman:
>
> On 27 Jan 2008, at 6:00 PM, Alex Hamann wrote:
>
>> Just did my switch to the new local-file system (yes, I am late) and
>> everything is nice and smooth. Just one problem arises for me:
>> my autofile preferences were
>> %b/%p1
On 27 Jan 2008, at 6:00 PM, Alex Hamann wrote:
> Just did my switch to the new local-file system (yes, I am late) and
> everything is nice and smooth. Just one problem arises for me:
> my autofile preferences were
> %b/%p1/%f{Cite Key}%u0%e
> the option Papers folder location was checked and set
Just did my switch to the new local-file system (yes, I am late) and
everything is nice and smooth. Just one problem arises for me:
my autofile preferences were
%b/%p1/%f{Cite Key}%u0%e
the option Papers folder location was checked and set to ~/Library/
texmf/bibtex/bib/BibDesk files
this result
32 matches
Mail list logo
