> On May 22, 2024, at 17:12 , quark67 via Bibdesk-users > <[email protected]> wrote: > > If the user click on "@" in url or doi field, AND there are \_ in the field, > I copy the content of the field, I replace all occurrences of \_ by _, and > then I paste the resulted string to the browser so it can open the correct > URL.
In my opinion, guessing at the user's intent and munging data is not acceptable in general, because replacing characters in a URL is a security risk. You may be happier if you can remove Doi as a "Remote URL" field (assuming this is still possible). > Perhaps I'm missing something obvious. Perhaps, the solution of the "_" > problem is not for the end user to replace _ by \_ in the url and doi field. You are missing something, although I don't know if it's obvious. You (or Elsevier) need to edit the BibTeX style to interpret/display those fields correctly, instead of altering the underlying data to be incorrect. Take a look at how abbrvnat.bst (to pick a random example) handles this. Unfortunately, not all styles handle a "doi" field correctly, so you may not find a one-size-fits-all solution. If you can't modify the style or are sending your input files to Elsevier, you might look into wrapping the doi field contents in a \url command (style will be tricky here), or just export a minimal BibTeX file without doi and send that. A final option if you can't modify the style would be to send the contents of your .bbl file after you correctly handle doi (or just insert the \bibitem commands to your document to produce camera-ready copy). IIRC some publishers require this, as they won't use BibTeX. > I also have a suggestion: when we import citations from certains scientific > journals, they automatically add an abstract in the abstract field, but often > the abstract is text with Unicode characters (for example: greek letters, > astronomical symbols). These Unicode characters prevent the TeX Preview to > run. Only if you a bst that prints the abstract (which sounds like a dreadful idea). If you are using TeX to print the contents of the Abstract field, you are responsible for fixing the data. The idea behind that field was to preserve info for searching and quick reading in the GUI, as it is (or was) not a standard BibTeX field. > Also, what about the very few .bst style available in BibTeX style menu? Why > only English, German, Polish .bst style? If only English .bst style are > displayed, OK. But making available also German and Polish without other > languages is strange. Perhaps this question needs another thread. No idea. I thought it only displayed the base styles: $ ls /usr/local/texlive/2023basic/texmf-dist/bibtex/bst/base abbrv.bst acm.bst alpha.bst apalike.bst ieeetr.bst plain.bst siam.bst unsrt.bst The additional styles have been in there for a long time, but I don't recall when or why they were added. Adam
_______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
