On Jun 25, 2006, at 9:37 PM, Jon Rubin wrote:
On another question of Bruce's: no I would not give up a style editing
GUI. It's not just that I have no interest in hand coding XML (however
simple) but I don't think any of my colleagues would do either. 90% of
the time not editing the styles won't be a problem but there's always
one journal out there that wants it slightly different. Of course if
Microsoft enforces strict following of style guidelines by not
allowing any flexibility and journals fall into line because everybody
is using Word, then this may not be a problem in any event!
There are two separate issues:
1) what we get programmers to commit to coding
2) a larger vision of possibilities
On the second, I've long thought that we ought to get to a place where
a user never has to edit a style, or that if they did, they might do it
via a web interface tied to a repository. So imagine instead of
worrying about this, OOoBib could just grab your needed style off the
web.
However the insert citation seems a bit wonky. I only have two
citations so far, so a simple drop down list is fine but I could have
hundreds - or at least enough to drop down past the end of the page
making inserting a potential problem. I'll add more citations later to
see how it handles longer lists.
I actually hadn't tested that bit, but I agree. I think we'd always
assumed a simple filterable table where one could drag-and-drop, even
if the database was remote.
What exactly is the 'tag name' for? I assume its supposed to be the
unique identifier for that record.
Yeah, kind of. They have a separate GUID field in the XML, but this is
a user-specific key.
This I suppose is in response to Bruce's query about remote and local
records - it's only if that tag name is /really/ unique that that
problem does not cause a major headache - or have I misunderstood the
point about local and remote records?
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. MS uses this key to associate
citation with record, and I've told them this is a bad idea.
I suppose this could be answered by seeing how it handles when you
have a new master record with some duplicated records (the help claims
that, "you might connect to a file on a share, on a research
colleague's computer or server, or on a Web site that is hosted by a
university or research institution" ... well we shall see), but that
is something for me to experiment with later.
I think the problem will come up when you have people collaborating on
documents.
There doesn't seem to be any way to import bibliographies from formats
other than an xml file, which is a major problem, so I've only added a
couple of references.
Correct, though it's clear MS still has some stuff planned before final
release. I wouldn't be hard to add that.
It doesn't appear to offer a footnote style of referencing so I can't
tell whether or not it can handle switching to and from that kind of
referencing and renumbering the footnotes.
It's hard to tell if they allow this or not. In theory (based on
looking through the XML) it should support it, but who knows.
Yes I have voted for the bibliography improvements.
Good; we're now at 72!
Bruce
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
