David is proposing that the scope of the OOo bibliogrpahy tools be kept to
an absolute minimum. I would support this.
I would like to see:
1. An external reference database / research tool that could be used with
both Word and Writer. It should be able to store not jsut metadata but
full-text ar
On 7/16/06, David Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have been think about this question, what do we need a local SQL database
for? And how does it need to be integrated with the Bibliographic
application?
And come to think of it, do we need to have source editing within OOo
at all? One could
On Sunday 16 July 2006 9:47 pm, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> And I think with some caveats, they will have met these goals. I am
> particularly intrigued by their no-local-database approach, where the
> editing forms are only editing XML data embedded in the file package.
>
> This is something we need
On Jul 16, 2006, at 5:38 AM, David Wilson wrote:
I read through the exchange and I think you put your position very
well and
the response was rather defensively or evasive.
I think it's worth paying close attention to what they've done not just
for interoperability's sake, but also because
I read through the exchange and I think you put your position very well and
the response was rather defensively or evasive.
David
On Saturday 15 July 2006 10:52 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> So based on back-and-forth with the product manager responsible for
> the new bib support in Word 2007*:
>
