Regarding Bruce's comments: I totally understand your point of view, and I
agree that even a highly polished version of the current site will still be
difficult for non-technical users. However I think it will be far easier
than a generic XML editor and will enable more users to edit CSL.
The idea of editing the formatted citations directly and inferring a
style algorithmically is very interesting, but I think it's difficult do
well. The 'black box' nature of this approach could get very annoying for
users when they don't get the results they want. Saying that, I'd like to
go some way down this road later in the project, extracting all the macros
from the existing repository for use as building blocks. In this case, I
think a version of the 'Search By Example' search but applied to macros
could be very powerful.
On 23 May 2012 16:27, Rintze Zelle <[email protected]> wrote:
> Some preliminary suggestions/questions:
>
> - are there plans to hook the editor up to GitHub? I'm wondering if it
> would be a good idea to make it possible for users to click a button, write
> a description of the changes they've made, and have the editor handle the
> creation of a pull request. (my concern is that obviously somebody would
> have to moderate all those pull requests)
>
This would be cool, we've thought about it but decided to focus on the core
editing features first, and then on an API to integrate it with reference
managers. So no immediate plans, but it's something we're considering, and
the code is open source, so anyone who wants is welcome to try implementing
this.
> - elements such as cs:text have a long list of possible attributes. I
> think it would be clearer to group these in the bottom-right frame in a
> group of active attributes at the top, and inactive attributes at the
> bottom.
>
Funnily enough it used to be like this, but we changed it since the
controls 'jumping around' was thought to be confusing.
> - it would be nice to have tooltips for all the attributes. It might be
> possible to pull these from the CSL schema, since it contains annotations
> for most of them.
>
That's a very good idea, I'll look into implementing it.
> - many attributes are mutually exclusive (e.g. "macro", "term", "value",
> and "variable" on cs:text). Maybe these attributes should be presented in a
> dropdown menu?
>
True, the property panel is very crudely designed at the moment and needs a
lot of work. I could see if this is easy to pull from the schema too,
> - it might be helpful to provide a bit more information on the nodes in
> the tree, and list the most important node information. E.g. "Text
> (variable: "page")" instead of just "Text"
>
I've been meaning to do this, just need to find the right balance and not
make it too cluttered.
>
> Rintze
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
