On Feb 13, 2009, at 2:33 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote: > > On 13 Feb 2009, at 9:48 AM, Alex Hamann wrote: > >> >> On 13.02.2009, at 07:06, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Sumit Narayan <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Not sure if anyone feels this way. >>>> >>>> I usually edit the Bibtex entries for a PDF/reference once and for >>>> all. Very rarely do I have to edit it again. I was thinking if we >>>> could have an option that double clicking the entry in main grid >>>> opens the PDF in local PDF viewer (or whatever is set by the user >>>> in preferences), instead of opening the entry for editing. We >>>> could have editing option either in secondary menu, or something >>>> through command/option click. >>>> >>>> Just an idea. Feel free to kick it. >>> >>> Then I'll do that ;) >>> I think that this shouldn't be done because it would be unexpected >>> behavior. Bibdesk is a Bibtex-editor, not a PDF-manager. Therefore >>> on >>> a double-click the bibtex-entry should be opened and be editable. >>> In Papers or Yep it makes sense because I have the feeling that >>> those >>> are for managing my PDFs but Bibdesk is for editing my bib-files >>> therefore the behavior it has right now is exactly right. >>> >>> Niels >>> >> >> I totally agree with Niels here. Why introduce another way of opening >> the attached files from the main window when there already is the >> thumbnail-based solution you mentioned? Also, how should the >> situation be handled if you have multiple files attached? Would you >> then expect all of these files to be opened? I don't think this makes >> sense. > > I also agree with Niels, BD is a citation manager, not a pDF manager. > So double-click should do the most relevant thing: editing the > citation. > > Apart from this, you really can do this already a long time. Make sure > you add a Local File column, and then double-click in that column. The > contextual menu also knows about it. A similar thing applies to the > Remote URL column. > > Christiaan
I strongly agree with all the replies. And so, I did want to comment. In some strange way I take this request as an indication of just how powerful a tool BibDesk is. BD absolutely is a citation manager, not a PDF manager. The developers and the actively commenting users have never suggested otherwise, nor will they or we. However, it is so well put together that there are users out there that are apparently using it more as the latter than the former. There is no reason ever to imagine BD becoming a PDF manager in intent or focus, but those who want to use it that way can do so fairly easily and effectively. Why? Good programming aiming at good scholarship led naturally to good tools for filing papers. As a person who has never been good at keeping paper files neatly, who came of age before the era of online journals, BD has been a revelation. In the three years or so (v. 1.1.2?) I have been using it I have not only been able to keep my bibliographies straight and feel comfortable about moving to LaTeX (I had been trapped in the ever deteriorating and increasingly bloated MSWord/EndNote purgatory since 1987 or whenever EN1 actually came out, things back that far are a bit hazy in my mind...). I have also been able to keep track of papers for the first time in my life without having to sit at my desk and think about which pile I left them in (yes I know that EN had/has PDF linking etc. but EN is commercial, so I was stuck with an ancient version of it for years)... For all that, I would like to thank the developers, for completely changing my experience of scholarship. Your product is awesome and I probably should have put this in a different note with its own heading but I post so seldom that I figured I had better say it here. Cheers, Rob > > >> >> Another minor issue (concerning a different topic): Please, when >> starting a new topic do not create your message to this mailing list >> by replying to a previous post and deleting the content. While at >> first glance that will create a new empty message directed to the >> right recipient this in fact messes up the threads. Apple Mail (and >> other mailing programs) show that your message still belongs to the >> "New group based on latex source"-thread. This is a little annoying >> when trying to organize and follow the messages. Instead, right click >> on the recipient of a previous message (which is this mailing list) >> and click on "New Message". This will make sure that the mixing-up >> won't happen. >> Thanks, >> >> Alex > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San > Francisco, CA > -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the > Enterprise > -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source > participation > -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source > code: SFAD > http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H > _______________________________________________ > Bibdesk-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
