Yes, it's more like SUTRS (which, as I've said a lot, is short for junk). My
main complaint to Wilieey is that indeed it is not recognizable and much
structures, so saying that others "should just recognize it" is truly
arrogant.
Christiaan
On 11/8/07, Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
I hate to say it, but I agree with Wiley on this one. Their files
have a .ris extension when I download them, but their tagged format
isn't even close to RIS. It's more like ScienceDirect, if you compare
the fragments here:
Wiley:
AU: David M. Marx, Diederik A. Stapel
TI: It's all in the
On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:19 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
> BTW, BibDesk does recognize the EndNote format they provide.
It partially reads it if you copy the text and paste it into BibDesk.
This so-called EndNote format is a bastardized refer format that
EndNote extended.
--
adam
BTW, BibDesk does recognize the EndNote format they provide.
Christiaan
On 8 Nov 2007, at 10:53 AM, Bertolt Meyer wrote:
2z8swy
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find pr
I would say it's worse than that. Plain text isn't a bibliography
format, it means "a bunch of characters". How can you recognize and
parse that? Filters need some structure, and a way to recognize that
structure. And they should also understand that they're not the only
suppliers on the wo
Hi all,
I recently posted regarding troubles I had with importing reference
from WileyInterscience. You told me that the format they use is RIS
and that it lacks the TY field (example here: http://tinyurl.com/
2z8swy), therefore BibDesk can't import it. I complained to them about
the missin
