Jump to content


Level 5*
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by jefito

  1. Sometimes it's just reporting what the Evernote folks have said before, sometimes numerous times (often it's accompanied with a link to one of their statements). For myself, I try not to predict what they're likely to do or not do, though if there's good technical reason to think that they won't do it, I might say that. Other than that, was there anything about hierarchical tags that you wanted to add?
  2. Tags are nested by merely dragging and dropping in the tag tree. Drop a tag onto another tag, and the tag (and all of its children) will become nested under the second tag. Drop a tag on the "Tags" label (it's not a real tag) and the tag and its children will become top-level tags. Stacks are merely collections of notebooks; they're nice because they allow you to organize your notebook list (you have a max of 250 notebooks -- managing them as a flat list can be onerous) and certain operations, like search can be applied on a stack of notebooks. Notebooks are merely flat collections of notes.No
  3. Nope. Each note in inside of exactly one notebook. Notebooks can be nested, to one level, inside a Stack, but you cannot nest a notebook inside another notebook. Stacks cannot be nested. Notes can be associated with tags, and tags can be organized in a hierarchical tree, but they are not themselves functionally hierarchical. There's plenty of discussion here on the forums on this topic, if you care to search.
  4. No problem -- thanks for making the suggestion and presenting it well.
  5. Except that you left out the actual UI work, before you pitched it over the wall to QA. Off the top of my head (and guessing at the behind-the-scenes machinery): * adding the right-click menu item for "Convert to LaTeX image", and its converse (but only when the alt text indicates it's a LaTeX image), and hooking up the handler code * fetching the LaTex conversion URL service from the preferences (and adding UI to set and maintain that in Options) * handling any errors from the HTTP GET operation (which itself can fail) and any appropriate user notification * converting the image to what
  6. I'm still not sure where you get the notion that this is all so easy for Evernote to implement.
  7. That's not a problem at all, you've misunderstood my idea. The only thing needed is an option in the context menu that converts the selected text to an "existing web-friendly renderings like JPEG, GIF, PDF, etc." by using a web service that interprets the text as LateX (or MathML). That's everything! To be fair to Dave, your original proposal was automatic conversion of '$' delimited text into LaTex generated images. By changing the requirements to a right-click option after Dave replied to you is just moving the goalposts. BTW, I do think that a user-initiated approach is better in the contex
  8. Nope, it isn't XML: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaTeX
  9. Having already suggested '+tag:' and 'tagtree:' previously in this thread (I now think that 'tags:' would be better than 'tagtree'), 'tag:+' is spelling variant on the same concept. The latter might be a little problematic for anyone who , for whatever reason, uses a '+' character on the end of their tag names, but then again a similar problem already exists for someone who uses a '*' character there; both are currently accepted by the Windows UI (the '+ seems to work). One further refinement to the basic concept that would probably be required/desired: a way to search for tag + immediate chil
  10. That's cute, jbenson. I'm certainly nerdy enough to get the joke. Even so, I'd rate this as an interesting idea rather than great, and I have some doubts as to how widespread demand for this would be. Not that it's wholly conclusive, but i founds only three threads in the forum from a search of 'latex', plus some google hits.
  11. I guess a question would be how you would disambiguate between this use of '$' delimiters and other uses of '$' that don't designate LaTex, in a backward compatible way? I would think that this makes things not-so-simple. Probably means storing the original source into an 'alt' attribute, and then you need to interpret all of those for the special LaTeX delimiters too.
  12. I certainly disagree with the characterization of the situation as stated in your 'bottom line' for reasons stated. And there is concrete discussion here in this thread on the topic that you profess to want to discuss. If you want discuss actual issues, then do that.
  13. This seems like a false issue; I find that there is actually little debate on that score, at least among the folks who comment here regularly. Indeed, a lot of the commentary in that direction really tends to be from the folks who encounter Evernote's system and post here about the lack of 'true' hierarchical facilities (e.g. "you've got to be kidding", et al)' as if they expect that Evernote is going to turn around and say "OMG!! We totally missed that. Wow, we need to fix that right away!". But I think I can guarantee you that the Evernote folks are and have been aware of this, and have cons
  14. There is no magic thread; this is the way that it is. The tag tree is an organizational structure and does not imply subclassing, an inheritance hierarchy, or what-have-you. It's evidently a deliberate choice, with no announced plans to change it. Some folks can't cope with it, and others it doesn't bother. The topic's been discussed at great length elsewhere -- feel free to search the forums -- but for now, that's how it works.
  15. When you found problems, did you report them to baumgarr (the Nevernote developer)?
  16. Yes, you can say that, and I believe that your opinion is welcomed by Evernote staff. Me, I don't really care to organize my notes in hierarchical folders, as tags are plenty for me. I understand that others want that, but I've seen no interest in providing that in anything I've read by Evernote staff, so it's a moot point for me.
  17. Color me impressed. In a quick (and incomplete) test, everything seemed in order. Saved searches were a little slow to finish, and PDFs were slow to display. But I liked the zoom feature, and everything else I tried seemed to be in order.
  18. Hi baumgarr, I was tempted to try running it on Windows, but them I stopped. Has it been tried running in parallel with Evernote? I suppose that you use separate databases, so it's probably safe, except for the possibility of getting note conflicts. thanks for your work -- very noble.
  19. For the Linux users who may not know about this, there's an open source Linux Evernote client now available -- NeverNote -- that was just written up in a Lifehacker post: http://lifehacker.com/#!5762376/nevernote-is-an-open-source-evernote-client-designed-for-linux-no-wine-required. According to the story, it's a Java app, and therefore can also work for Windows and Mac OS users as well (I haven't verified that). NeverNote home page: http://nevernote.sourceforge.net/index.htm SourceForge page: http://sourceforge.net/projects/nevernote/ Congratulations to forum member baumgarr, the NeverNote de
  20. I think you'll find that the search grammar underlies all note searching and filtering (per the Evernote API), therefore, if recursive search was to be supported, it would need to be supported there. If you want a global setting to govern recursive searching, then you'd have a conflict if you also allowed mixed recursive and non-recursive searches in the grammar (who wins, the literal search that the user typed in, or the global setting that the user may or may not have set explicitly?). Aside from that, there's the matter of where to put it: the controls that affect searching (e.g. Any/All,
  21. No, I very much disagree with that. The search tool should, as much as possible, accept the search grammar literally' and not reflect (also as much as possible) hidden search modes. In particular, you should be able to mix recursive and non-recursive searches in this (currently hypo0thetical and mythical) search grammar extension. ~Jeff
  22. I think that any change in UI-based search behavior would also need to be reflected in the search grammar, so that it can be used in saved searches. That is, if you want a recursive tag search, you'd probably need to have support that in the search grammar. Elsewhere I've suggested a change to the grammar for recursive searches that uses "+tag:tagname", which would match notes that have tag 'tagname' or any of its children. Alternatively they could introduce a new search term, say 'tagtree', to something similar. We'd probably want to have negation as well, either '-+tag:tagname' (awkward look
  23. A prior discussion here: http://forum.evernote.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=19924&p=83399. ~Jeff
  24. We've had this suggestion before, back a couple of months ago. Basically means having a separate field (or index) that tracks manual order, which changes when you move notes around, possibly cascading into other notes (e.g. I have notes in order 1, 2 and 3, I move 3 above 2 and so must change both 2 and 3's sort order index -- swaps them in this case). Also gets a little messy and possible confusing if I am viewing a filtered list (via notebook or tag or saved search), and start moving things around: how does it affect other notes not currently being viewed? ~Jeff
  • Create New...