Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
I understand the request, but I don't think we need a separate option just for
this. I'd recommend naming your sub-collections in a more descriptive way, such
as Language.Original and Language.Translated.
Original comment by quisvir
on 27 Feb 2012 at 10:16
The issue arises because of Calibre automatic collection generator.
And remember:
+ In Calibre the hierarchical values are separated through. (Example in Tags:
Fantasy.Discworld.Rincewind).
+ In Calibre you can have the same kind of column/field (a Yes/No, a rating)
for several different and personal purposes:
- Original Language? >> Yes/no kind.
- Desired to read again? >> Yes/no kind
- Is this book a gift? >> Yes/no
- Also owned in paper? >> Yes/no
...
- General book rating >> Rating kind.
- Translation rating >> Rating kind.
- Cover art rating >> Rating kind.
(use your imagination)
+ Calibre can generate automatic collections based on your library
column/fields so, more or less, you can transfer the metadata info you have in
your library to your Sony. In the Sony eReader, these metadata are translated
into a lot of several different collections and sub-collections which group
your books.
+ Of course you can set up the collection generator pattern, but mixing all the
elements I told before, the easiest, quickest and more elegant way is just
using a Field.Value pattern. In this way you end with my "small" trouble.
Probably you could use other schemes but it involves much more work. For
example mixing your example and mine: in addition to "Original Language?"
yes/no field, I could add another extra auxiliary field called "Language" to
Calibre where I put Original or Translated values based on "Original Language?"
value. OK this method, although a bit PITA, is feasible; but what do I do in
case of several rating columns which lead to several repeated "0", "1", ...,
"5" child collections? How do I translate Cover Art Rating.5 to something
different from General Rating.5
(I really think this feature could be really nice, although I understand its
priority in the middle of everything else is nearly null. It's just a cosmetic
issue and I cannot evaluate the coding effort it can take...)
Original comment by alr...@gmail.com
on 28 Feb 2012 at 5:06
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
alr...@gmail.com
on 26 Feb 2012 at 8:09