On Oct 2, 2007, at 4:50 PM, Michael McCracken wrote: <snip>
>> Perhaps it could be added to Operator, the microformats parser? >> Yeah, these are not microformats per se (must ufs be html?), but >> these bibtex links are a hell of a cowpath. > > I'm not sure what you're suggesting. What could be added to Operator? > microformats do have to be html, and in these cases, we're not > generating or parsing much structured HTML. Yeah, I thought it was a stretch :) I meant that the suggested browser plugin for sending these reference types to BibDesk could be added to Operator, but that would require the parsers etc to be there and that ain't going to happen (since they wouldn't be parsing well marked up html). I guess I was just pointing out the similarities. > You know, if you want to propose a microformat that had a chance of > being useful soon, try "rel-bibtex" - just give us a link to raw > bibtex source, and mark it up with rel="bibtex". Done and done. > > I'd suggest that on the uf-discuss list if I thought anyone would take > it seriously. I know what you mean. It's definitely "paving the cow-path" (lots of individual's publication pages work like that) and would be immediately useful for us. It wouldn't be too hard on publishers either (would be a simple template change for Google Scholar). That's 3 uf'y points in favor :) I lurk there and could speak up in support but watching hCite I understand your reluctance. Cheers, James ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-develop
