-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refactor BibTeX file field #98
Comments
About "Should we keep the pdf field?", I would say no IF it becomes possible to define several custom general fields to manage files (BTW: this is a registered feature request). Hence, users who want to have a PDF field and a PS field and a DVI field, etc. can get it. |
Related feature request: https://sourceforge.net/p/jabref/feature-requests/597/ |
Sorry for not taking the time to point to the specific feature requests. See: |
Also related: DOS path in link |
Before refactoring 'file' field, remember that there are at least one other |
If the content of the file field does not contain |
Decision today: Use |
Refs JabRef#52 |
Ulrike Fischer makes a straight-forward approach: Uses the See in following article: @Article{Fischer:TB35-3-256,
author = "Ulrike Fischer",
title = "\pgm{biblatex} variations",
journal = [j-TUGboat](http://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/tex/bib/tugboat.html#j-TUGboat),
volume = "35",
number = "3",
pages = "256--260",
year = "2014",
ISSN = "0896-3207",
ISSN-L = "0896-3207",
bibdate = "Sat May 23 10:53:04 MDT 2015",
bibsource = "https://www.math.utah.edu/pub/tex/bib/index-table-t.html#tugboat;
https://www.math.utah.edu/pub/tex/bib/tugboat.bib",
URL = "https://tug.org/TUGboat/tb35-3/tb111fischer.pdf",
acknowledgement = ack-bnb # " and " # ack-nhfb,
fjournal = "TUGboat",
issue = "111",
journal-URL = "https://tug.org/TUGboat/",
remark = "Intermediate{\Dash}biblatex as a database: QR codes,
PDF attachments, address lists.",
} @termin{dante2014,
title={Biblatex-Variationen},
date ={2014-04-11},
time ={15.15},
location={Heidelberg}}
@online{dante,
title={Internetseite dante e.V.},
url ={http://www.dante.de}}
@online{heidelberg,
title={Stadt Heidelberg},
url ={http://www.heidelberg.de}}
@adresse{max,
name ={Muster, Max},
strasse ={Im Versuchsweg 10},
ort ={Testgelände},
plz ={X01234},
gender ={sm}}
@adresse{eva,
name ={Muster, Eva},
strasse ={Im Versuchsweg 10},
ort ={Testgel#nde},
plz ={X01234},
gender={sf}}
@article{input1,
author={Fischer, Ulrike},
title ={Erster Text},
journal={Beispiele},
date={2012-04-08},
url ={inputtext1.pdf}}
@article{input2,
author={Fischer, Ulrike},
title ={Zweiter Text},
journal={Beispiele},
date ={2013-02-07},
url ={inputtext2.pdf}}
@book{gambol,
author={Gambolputty de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crasscrenbon, Johann},
title={Titel},
year={1970}}
@book{dante2007,
author = {Dante Alighieri},
title = {Die G¨ottliche Komm¨odie},
gender = {sm},
location = {Stuttgart},
year = {2007},
translator = {Hermann Gmelin}} |
I am a bit confused: when I want to include an URL in a reference, I want it to be a real URL, not a local file (name or path/name). How to do this, then? |
Just related: file field is supported by zotero and probably other reference managaer as well. I agree with @mlep for me it's a clear distinguishing between file and url |
JabRef should be convenient for new users to use. When using the
file
field, the format for each file entry isdescription:link:type
. Multiple values can be put in separated by;
. At each file, fields can be omitted.file = {desc}
is a valid enry. Naively, I would have assumed thatdesc
is the link. Furthermoretype
is a custom JabRef string, but Media Types are the accepted standard for providing types.Therefore, I propose the new format
link:description:media type
.Furthermore, I propose dropping support for the legacy fields pdf and ps. These fields were legacy from the end of 2007 on. Even though some users want to keep the old fields, I would vote for an intuitive handling of references to external files instead of clutter the UI with legacy things. (I currently can't find the email in the mailinglist where we discussed that :()
Discussion points
:
and;
good separators?file
really more intuitive than separatepdf
andps
links? Should we keep thepdf
field?attachments
to enable easy migration from the old format to the new one?Next steps
I would propose a discussion at this issue and I'll update this text accordingly.
We should also remove "Tools -> Legacy Tools...".
More to read
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: