Hi,
I have been using Leo to write my thesis. I didn't know about Docear,
but my use was in some sense similar. I have a lot of @url links
pointint to the pdfs files and in a subtree I cut and paste the text of
the pdf I want to comment and made the comments inside the tree. These
pdf were part of my bibliographic entries and I'm now writing a .bib
file for these, so I can have in only one Leo tree all my thesis, with
all the references to external files and the annotations and bibtex
entries for them. For me the key point of Leo in academic writing is the
tree view plus the clones and ignore nodes. My thesis can have several
layers, the external ones being the actual writing and the deeper ones
the references, texts, images, tools that enable me to do that writing.
Using clones and @rst-no-head directives I can have the level of
granularity of a paragraph, something that is not possible on
traditional word processor which are the writing tool of tools like
docear. This approach have some glitches:
* I still need to do some fine tunning to the LaTeX export for writing
the pdf as I want. I imagine that putting sphinx in the tool chain could
change that.
* I can not get much people of my companions using this advangages,
besides of myself, because of the difficult installation process of Leo
in Windows/Mac and the not so friendly interface for non-programmers.
Other light markup structured text writing programs like Nested[1] are
more easily used and understood despite of not having all the advantages
and flexibility of Leo.
So, in resume, may be the better approach is connecting Leo to Docear,
so you can have the advantages of both in terms of easy multiplataform
installation and friendly interface of the later and programmability,
flexibility and deeper organic structure of the former.
Cheers,
Offray
On 30/07/12 04:44, Josef wrote:
Recently I evaluated docear - a mind-mapping tool for collecting reference data
(written in Java). It automatically extracts bookmarks and annotations from PDF
files, and more, but it's support for authoring is still not up to the task. I
think it would be great if Leo could do some of the tasks docear is doing.
Leo is primarily a literate programming editor, but also quite good at
organizing bits of information. Dragging a PDF into Leo currently just creates
an url to the PDF. This could be expanded to also extract data (bookmarks,
notes) from the PDF and to sync this data between Leo and the PDF. This info
could be placed in child nodes: bookmarks and notes could even jump directly to
the page in the PDF (although each PDF viewer seems to have a different syntax
for doing that). This would be a great way to organize data sheets and
specifications stemming from external sources.
Combining the above with an improved LaTeX support, one would get a very
powerful research and authoring tool - in my opinion with a much more convenient
interface than docear.
Perhaps it is too much work to duplicate all the work docear is doing. An
alternative may be to sync data somehow between docear and Leo. Docear stores
the data in a freeplane mind-map. Has anyone else thoughts about this?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/leo-editor/-/uviFCvR9DeMJ.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
