[referencer] List view issues (was Referencer 1.0.4-pre)

[John Spray]

On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 19:25 +0200, Frederik Elwert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 31.05.2007, 10:52 -0600 schrieb Rick L Vinyard Jr:
> > Just a few personal wishlist items; and before I list them... I'll
> > help 
> > write them if you want.
> > 
> >   * Hierarchical tags... i.e. tags organized by trees.
> 
> Right, I proposed something related. But I'd prefer ad-hoc trees based
> on the occurrence of related Tags over fixed hierarchies. What do you
> think about this?

I guess the main difference between actual trees and an automatic
tree-like display is that if the trees were specified by the user then
he could have a situation where when he has

Mammal
 - Dog
 - Cat
Fish
 - Shark
 - Goldfish

Then when he tags a file as "Shark" he gets the "Fish" tag
automatically, rather than having to specify it by hand.

Personally I don't have a preference, since I use a flat list of tags
anyway.

> 
> >   * BibTeX fields that change based on the type in the document 
> > properties dialog
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibtex seems to have a pretty good list
> > of 
> > what is required and what is optional for each type.
> 
> Oh, this would be so cool! Then referencer would turn into a more
> general purpose bibliography tool and not just an article manager. Now,
> I still use pybliographer for my BibTeX files and have a second database
> for my PDF articles in referencer. Using only one tool would be really
> nice.

Evil pybliographer user  ;-)

Is the knowing which fields for which doc type the main thing that keeps
you with pybliographer or is it other things?  I notice they have
medline search which we don't have (yet).

> >   * Per document notes... i.e. a mechanism for associating notes with a 
> > particular item.
> 
> Besides the external-app-solution, referencer could have it's own way of
> managing notes - there is a corresponding BibTeX-field, so it would make
> sense in a way.

The note field is used more often for things like @Unpublished entries
with a \url, right?  Not sure it would be a good idea to populate it
with annotation-type notes.

John