On 4 Jan 2009, at 1:35 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>> Ah, I was looking at another change. I thought this was about a
>> recent
>> change, this is a relatively old change.
>>
>> RIS is truly a mess, that's why the RIS parsers are a mess.
On Jan 4, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
Ah, I was looking at another change. I thought this was about a recent
change, this is a relatively old change.
RIS is truly a mess, that's why the RIS parsers are a mess.
That's a bit unfair, since RIS and MEDLINE actually are well
docu
On 2009-01-03 23:06, "Adam R. Maxwell" wrote:
>>> 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.
Absolutely.
>> But this is in the RIS parser, not the PubMed parser, which completely
On 4 Jan 2009, at 12:06 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>> On 3 Jan 2009, at 7:01 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW, I'd suggest that Greg's patch or the original code should
>>> probably be used for PubMed, since this sounds like pretty
On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
On 3 Jan 2009, at 7:01 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
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
But this is in the RIS p
On 3 Jan 2009, at 7:01 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> 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
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
Hi Greg,
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://sou
Hello,
I've noticed recently that when importing records from PubMed (eg via the
built in search) the BibTex Year field ends up with the full contents of
PubMed's DP (Date of Publication) field which looks like:
DP - 1975 Oct 27
This is annoying because BibTex expects that field to have nothing
