On Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 09:48AM, "Rainer Sigwald" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 9/12/07, Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Okay, using a document-relative path certainly makes sense in that
>> situation. The question then becomes: should we keep this behavior, or
>> break it now? (By break, I mean use home-relative instead of
>> document-relative paths). Opinions from the users? What's easier for
>> people to deal with? I think Mike may be responsible for the original
>> implementation, so maybe he has comments.
>
>I strongly prefer the relative-to-bibfile implementation. I keep both
>my .bib file and my papers folder in a Subversion repository, which I
>may check out to a different location periodically.
>
>I also have concerns about the new system with regard to
>cross-platform compatibility and human readability. The current
>system makes it quite easy to open the .bib file in (for example)
>vim/emacs/Notepad and extrapolate from "local-url = {}" to find the
>referenced file by hand. That doesn't seem possible with the proposed
>ASCII-armored Mac OS X alias. Is that correct, or am I
>misunderstanding?
This is correct. It should also be possible to keep the old system around,
although I'm not sure how we'll manage autofile in that case. The only reason
I can see for doing this is cross-platform compatibility; if you find using vi
or (shudder) emacs easier than BibDesk on Mac OS, we're doing something wrong
:).
Incidentally, scripting would give you access to paths in the new system, so
conceivably you could use a script hook to copy them to Local-Url when saving.
No idea how practical that is.
adam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
