KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Václav Haisman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1189 bytes --]

​Hi.

I have submitted ​a pull request
<https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/pull/214> to jgm/pandoc-templates
<https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/> with a KOMA-script specific
LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only reaction I got to that was a
single thumbs up from a 3rd person. Today, I am here to ask if I should
submit the non-default template somewhere else where it would be more
appropriate or close the pull request and maintain the template just for
myself? Is there no interest in KOMA-script specific LaTeX template to
packaged with Pandoc?
​
-- 
VH

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/CAKw7uViZGXEgMcGC9tjG9nET36k5H--TMLzf7uz8myjvUaXYJw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2920 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Jan Ulrich Hasecke]

Am 24.11.2016 um 07:54 schrieb Václav Haisman:
> ​Hi.
> 
> I have submitted ​a pull request
> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/pull/214> to
> jgm/pandoc-templates <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/> with a
> KOMA-script specific LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only
> reaction I got to that was a single thumbs up from a 3rd person. Today,
> I am here to ask if I should submit the non-default template somewhere
> else where it would be more appropriate or close the pull request and
> maintain the template just for myself? Is there no interest in
> KOMA-script specific LaTeX template to packaged with Pandoc?

I think there is great interested, at least in Europe.

juh



-- 
Das ZEN von Pandoc
Bücher und E-Books einfach und professionell produzieren
http://www.amazon.de/Das-ZEN-von-Pandoc-professionell/dp/1505218799/
Paperback (232 Seiten) und E-Book

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/e4cc11f9-ee03-59ba-4378-733cec0a5aa6%40mailbox.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Jan Ulrich Hasecke]

Am 24.11.2016 um 08:13 schrieb Jan Ulrich Hasecke:
> I think there is great interested, at least in Europe.
OMG, my English is broken. :-(

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[John MacFarlane]

So far we don't supply any non-default templates as part of
pandoc.  Let me explain my hesitation about changing this.

First, although I can certainly see a use for koma.latex,
once the door is open to default templates, there is
potentially no end to the submissions we might get.
Why not have templates for memoir, handouts, business letters,
and so on?  And these might be multiplied by the number of
supported formats.  Pretty soon we double or triple the
number of templates we support.

Is there a downside to this?  Yes, because each of these
templates needs to be maintained as pandoc evolves.  I get
bug reports for all of them.  So this could lead to a big
increase in maintenance burdens.

So perhaps it would be better to have a separate repository
or something to collect non-official, non-default templates?

+++ Václav Haisman [Nov 24 16 07:54 ]:
>   Hi.
>
>   I have submitted a [1]pull request to [2]jgm/pandoc-templates with a
>   KOMA-script specific LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only
>   reaction I got to that was a single thumbs up from a 3rd person. Today,
>   I am here to ask if I should submit the non-default template somewhere
>   else where it would be more appropriate or close the pull request and
>   maintain the template just for myself? Is there no interest in
>   KOMA-script specific LaTeX template to packaged with Pandoc?
>   --
>   VH

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/20161124092109.GG19838%40Administrateurs-iMac-3.local.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Mohammed Haris Minai]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1745 bytes --]

I would be very interested in a koma script template as well. However, I 
agree with @John, pandoc is probably not the right place for it. I think of 
the templates that come with pandoc as examples. I think the effort to make 
the "ecosystem" would be a much better place for it.

Referring to the 
thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pandoc-discuss/wbebx65e1Nk

As for me, I am on my way to download it from the PR. :-)

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:24:22 PM UTC+5:30, Václav Haisman 
wrote:
>
> ​Hi.
>
> I have submitted ​a pull request 
> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/pull/214> to jgm/pandoc-templates 
> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/> with a KOMA-script specific 
> LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only reaction I got to that was a 
> single thumbs up from a 3rd person. Today, I am here to ask if I should 
> submit the non-default template somewhere else where it would be more 
> appropriate or close the pull request and maintain the template just for 
> myself? Is there no interest in KOMA-script specific LaTeX template to 
> packaged with Pandoc? 
> ​
> -- 
> VH
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/5f20bf5c-b513-4df2-b2b2-9f144664a53d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4463 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Mohammed Haris Minai]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2197 bytes --]

Just to let you know, the template is giving me an error

! Undefined control sequence.
l.38 \recalctypearea

pandoc: Error producing PDF


The command line I use is:
pandoc paper.md --template=koma.latex -o paper.pdf

If I generate .tex and then use pdflatex it still gives me the same error. 
What gives? 

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:06:05 PM UTC+5:30, Mohammed Haris Minai 
wrote:
>
> I would be very interested in a koma script template as well. However, I 
> agree with @John, pandoc is probably not the right place for it. I think of 
> the templates that come with pandoc as examples. I think the effort to make 
> the "ecosystem" would be a much better place for it.
>
> Referring to the thread: 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pandoc-discuss/wbebx65e1Nk
>
> As for me, I am on my way to download it from the PR. :-)
>
> On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:24:22 PM UTC+5:30, Václav Haisman 
> wrote:
>>
>> ​Hi.
>>
>> I have submitted ​a pull request 
>> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/pull/214> to 
>> jgm/pandoc-templates <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/> with a 
>> KOMA-script specific LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only reaction 
>> I got to that was a single thumbs up from a 3rd person. Today, I am here to 
>> ask if I should submit the non-default template somewhere else where it 
>> would be more appropriate or close the pull request and maintain the 
>> template just for myself? Is there no interest in KOMA-script specific 
>> LaTeX template to packaged with Pandoc? 
>> ​
>> -- 
>> VH
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/f370c288-5895-48c7-b341-07f35943e829%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5565 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Václav Haisman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2581 bytes --]

On 24 November 2016 at 12:45, Mohammed Haris Minai <mhminai-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:

Just to let you know, the template is giving me an error
>
> ! Undefined control sequence.
> l.38 \recalctypearea
>
> pandoc: Error producing PDF
>
>
> The command line I use is:
> pandoc paper.md --template=koma.latex -o paper.pdf
>
​You have not specified a KOMA-script based documentclass. Add -V
documentclass:scrartcl to the command line. By default, Pandoc uses article
which is not one of the KOMA-scrip document classes.


> If I generate .tex and then use pdflatex it still gives me the same error.
> What gives?
>
> On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:06:05 PM UTC+5:30, Mohammed Haris
> Minai wrote:
>>
>> I would be very interested in a koma script template as well. However, I
>> agree with @John, pandoc is probably not the right place for it. I think of
>> the templates that come with pandoc as examples. I think the effort to make
>> the "ecosystem" would be a much better place for it.
>>
>> Referring to the thread: https://groups.google.
>> com/forum/#!topic/pandoc-discuss/wbebx65e1Nk
>>
>> As for me, I am on my way to download it from the PR. :-)
>>
>> On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:24:22 PM UTC+5:30, Václav Haisman
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ​Hi.
>>>
>>> I have submitted ​a pull request
>>> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/pull/214> to
>>> jgm/pandoc-templates <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/> with a
>>> KOMA-script specific LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only reaction
>>> I got to that was a single thumbs up from a 3rd person. Today, I am here to
>>> ask if I should submit the non-default template somewhere else where it
>>> would be more appropriate or close the pull request and maintain the
>>> template just for myself? Is there no interest in KOMA-script specific
>>> LaTeX template to packaged with Pandoc?
>>> ​
>>> --
>>> VH
>>>
>>
> ​
-- 
VH

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/CAKw7uVhV7t8yWnuX6UyU43%3DM3yqJDzkfdiDAfD0EKVu0n1es9Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14705 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Václav Haisman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3751 bytes --]

On 24 November 2016 at 10:21, John MacFarlane <jgm-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org> wrote:

So far we don't supply any non-default templates as part of
> pandoc.  Let me explain my hesitation about changing this.
>
> First, although I can certainly see a use for koma.latex,
> once the door is open to default templates, there is
> potentially no end to the submissions we might get.
> Why not have templates for memoir, handouts, business letters,
> and so on?  And these might be multiplied by the number of
> supported formats.  Pretty soon we double or triple the
> number of templates we support.
>
> Is there a downside to this?  Yes, because each of these
> templates needs to be maintained as pandoc evolves.  I get
> bug reports for all of them.  So this could lead to a big
> increase in maintenance burdens.
>
> So perhaps it would be better to have a separate repository
> or something to collect non-official, non-default templates?
>
​I understand your point. So how do we do this?

Let’s call this repository pandoc-templates-contributed for now. How do we
create it? Would you create it and serve as a gate/maintainer of the
contributions? Or do we do this differently?

The different way could like the following (I have not been following the
ecosystem thread here so I might be saying something you have already
discussed there):

Github’s organization
<https://github.com/blog/674-introducing-organizations> might help here.
You could create a Pandoc organization and, say, Contributed Templates
Maintainers team in it. Then create the pandoc-templates-contributed and
allow the Contributed Templates Maintainers team to manage the single
repository. It would not burden you much with day to day management but it
would still give you some control over it. (I have not actually used
Github’s teams feature before but it seems it might work well for this
case.)


> +++ Václav Haisman [Nov 24 16 07:54 ]:
>
>>   Hi.
>>
>>   I have submitted a [1]pull request to [2]jgm/pandoc-templates with a
>>   KOMA-script specific LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only
>>   reaction I got to that was a single thumbs up from a 3rd person. Today,
>>   I am here to ask if I should submit the non-default template somewhere
>>   else where it would be more appropriate or close the pull request and
>>   maintain the template just for myself? Is there no interest in
>>   KOMA-script specific LaTeX template to packaged with Pandoc?
>>   --
>>   VH
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "pandoc-discuss" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
> To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms
> gid/pandoc-discuss/20161124092109.GG19838%40Administrateurs-iMac-3.local.
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
​
-- 
VH

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/CAKw7uVgZ3MU6NV_kuhXYSKTkV%2BSydvZTOfdD92Sz3CTAsfWFGw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 13371 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[John MacFarlane]

+++ Václav Haisman [Nov 24 16 13:54 ]:
>   Github’s [2]organization might help here. You could create a Pandoc
>   organization and, say, Contributed Templates Maintainers team in it.
>   Then create the pandoc-templates-contributed and allow the Contributed
>   Templates Maintainers team to manage the single repository. It would
>   not burden you much with day to day management but it would still give
>   you some control over it. (I have not actually used Github’s teams
>   feature before but it seems it might work well for this case.)
>

I've thought about creating a pandoc organization before,
but unfortunately, someone already has the username
'pandoc'.  It's especially irritating because this person
doesn't seem to actually do anything on github...
But I think that probably makes it impossible to
register pandoc as an organization on GitHub, under
that name at least.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/20161124131305.GB25992%40Administrateurs-iMac-3.local.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Václav Haisman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1877 bytes --]

On 24 November 2016 at 14:13, John MacFarlane <jgm-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org> wrote:

+++ Václav Haisman [Nov 24 16 13:54 ]:
>
>>   Github’s [2]organization might help here. You could create a Pandoc
>>   organization and, say, Contributed Templates Maintainers team in it.
>>   Then create the pandoc-templates-contributed and allow the Contributed
>>   Templates Maintainers team to manage the single repository. It would
>>   not burden you much with day to day management but it would still give
>>   you some control over it. (I have not actually used Github’s teams
>>   feature before but it seems it might work well for this case.)
>>
>>
> I've thought about creating a pandoc organization before,
> but unfortunately, someone already has the username
> 'pandoc'.  It's especially irritating because this person
> doesn't seem to actually do anything on github...
> But I think that probably makes it impossible to
> register pandoc as an organization on GitHub, under
> that name at least.
>
> ​What about “pandoc-org” then, since the web is that as well? Couldn’t
Github do something about it? Maybe it could be considered name squatting
<https://help.github.com/articles/name-squatting-policy/>?

​— ​

VH
​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/CAKw7uVh1qa%2BF5mKjigQH2BiM5dsqbApbBAmyx7f0RBYCfawHFA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6275 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Mohammed Haris Minai]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2833 bytes --]

Silly me. :-) It could not all have been magic. Works like a charm! Thank 
you.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 6:07:19 PM UTC+5:30, Václav Haisman wrote:
>
> On 24 November 2016 at 12:45, Mohammed Haris Minai <mhm...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org 
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> Just to let you know, the template is giving me an error
>>
>> ! Undefined control sequence.
>> l.38 \recalctypearea
>>
>> pandoc: Error producing PDF
>>
>>
>> The command line I use is:
>> pandoc paper.md --template=koma.latex -o paper.pdf
>>
> ​You have not specified a KOMA-script based documentclass. Add -V 
> documentclass:scrartcl to the command line. By default, Pandoc uses 
> article which is not one of the KOMA-scrip document classes.
>
>
>> If I generate .tex and then use pdflatex it still gives me the same 
>> error. What gives? 
>>
>> On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:06:05 PM UTC+5:30, Mohammed Haris 
>> Minai wrote:
>>>
>>> I would be very interested in a koma script template as well. However, I 
>>> agree with @John, pandoc is probably not the right place for it. I think of 
>>> the templates that come with pandoc as examples. I think the effort to make 
>>> the "ecosystem" would be a much better place for it.
>>>
>>> Referring to the thread: 
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pandoc-discuss/wbebx65e1Nk
>>>
>>> As for me, I am on my way to download it from the PR. :-)
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:24:22 PM UTC+5:30, Václav Haisman 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ​Hi.
>>>>
>>>> I have submitted ​a pull request 
>>>> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/pull/214> to 
>>>> jgm/pandoc-templates <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/> with a 
>>>> KOMA-script specific LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only reaction 
>>>> I got to that was a single thumbs up from a 3rd person. Today, I am here to 
>>>> ask if I should submit the non-default template somewhere else where it 
>>>> would be more appropriate or close the pull request and maintain the 
>>>> template just for myself? Is there no interest in KOMA-script specific 
>>>> LaTeX template to packaged with Pandoc? 
>>>> ​
>>>> -- 
>>>> VH
>>>>
>>>
>> ​
> -- 
> VH
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/c1955534-80e6-4dc1-ab7b-3124be8bff80%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 16264 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Sergio Correia]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2263 bytes --]

I registered pandoc-extras <https://github.com/pandoc-extras/> a week ago 
or so, in order to host the extras as well as a small program to download 
them. If you are interested I can set it up to handle templates and add you 
to the org.

Best,
Sergio

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 8:21:21 AM UTC-5, Václav Haisman wrote:
>
> On 24 November 2016 at 14:13, John MacFarlane <j...-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org 
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> +++ Václav Haisman [Nov 24 16 13:54 ]:
>>
>>>   Github’s [2]organization might help here. You could create a Pandoc
>>>   organization and, say, Contributed Templates Maintainers team in it.
>>>   Then create the pandoc-templates-contributed and allow the Contributed
>>>   Templates Maintainers team to manage the single repository. It would
>>>   not burden you much with day to day management but it would still give
>>>   you some control over it. (I have not actually used Github’s teams
>>>   feature before but it seems it might work well for this case.)
>>>
>>>
>> I've thought about creating a pandoc organization before,
>> but unfortunately, someone already has the username
>> 'pandoc'.  It's especially irritating because this person
>> doesn't seem to actually do anything on github...
>> But I think that probably makes it impossible to
>> register pandoc as an organization on GitHub, under
>> that name at least.
>>
>> ​What about “pandoc-org” then, since the web is that as well? Couldn’t 
> Github do something about it? Maybe it could be considered name squatting 
> <https://help.github.com/articles/name-squatting-policy/>?
>
> ​— ​
>
> VH
> ​
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/4537c810-ea15-45b4-8f90-89966791d108%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 7266 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Kolen Cheung]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1346 bytes --]

To add insult to the injury, the pandoc organization is used by some simplified-Chinese to create pirated Simplified-Chinese fiction using pandoc as a tool, I've contacted GitHub and they wouldn't take it down unless the copyright owner is asking for it.

Have @jgm considered the pandoc-org alternatives? It will be great to have an official pandoc organization and allow pandoc related projects to fall under that umbrella. Right now pandoc-extras is (as the name suggested) un-official, 3rd party organization.

And I'm very interested to centralize pandoc related things like filters and templates. If there's a need of a centralized repository for templates, I can help maintaining it. You can follow the discussion in the "ecosystem" link mentioned above.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/34063d65-2322-432e-a635-df95e7637065%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Kolen Cheung]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1086 bytes --]

I've filed a complaint on violating ToS on the pandoc organization based on copyrighted materials in the past but GitHub ignored it because I'm not the copyright owner. I follow your suggestion to file a complaint based on Name Squatting Policy instead. I'll see what GitHub will do. I suggested the others to file the same complaint too and hopefully if there's more voice, GitHub will listen. And because the contents are pirated materials, one need not to have pity on what if he loses hours of work...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/3098b36c-7ff7-4488-bf9a-119b88bbbc0f%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[John MacFarlane]

I actually did contact GitHub a few days ago asking about
the name squatting policy.

They replied that the account is active (presumably with
private activity) so it doesn't fall under the name squatting
policy.  The best they could do was transmit a polite
message to the user from me asking whether they'd be willing
to change usernames and explaining why.

GH said they can only make this request once, and if the
person doesn't reply or replies unfavorably, there's no
further recourse.

So, we wait.  Nothing yet.  If it doesn't work out I could
get pandoc-org.

+++ Kolen Cheung [Dec 01 16 06:24 ]:
>I've filed a complaint on violating ToS on the pandoc organization based on copyrighted materials in the past but GitHub ignored it because I'm not the copyright owner. I follow your suggestion to file a complaint based on Name Squatting Policy instead. I'll see what GitHub will do. I suggested the others to file the same complaint too and hopefully if there's more voice, GitHub will listen. And because the contents are pirated materials, one need not to have pity on what if he loses hours of work...
>
>-- 
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
>To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
>To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/3098b36c-7ff7-4488-bf9a-119b88bbbc0f%40googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/20161201145716.GA35701%40Administrateurs-iMac-3.local.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Kolen Cheung]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 937 bytes --]

Did the people from GitHub contacted them yet? In terms of negotiation, since it is now at the mercy of @feixue, I think it is more polite to contact him/her directly and plead for it. I open an issue there in Chinese: <https://github.com/pandoc/feixueliantian/issues/1>. (I tried to sound more like simplified Chinese but I'm actually trditional Chinese.)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/ef774ce1-5ce6-4648-9c2a-51ac8560f854%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[John MacFarlane]

Yes, they have sent the message.

+++ Kolen Cheung [Dec 01 16 07:17 ]:
>Did the people from GitHub contacted them yet? In terms of negotiation, since it is now at the mercy of @feixue, I think it is more polite to contact him/her directly and plead for it. I open an issue there in Chinese: <https://github.com/pandoc/feixueliantian/issues/1>. (I tried to sound more like simplified Chinese but I'm actually trditional Chinese.)
>
>-- 
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
>To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
>To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/ef774ce1-5ce6-4648-9c2a-51ac8560f854%40googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/20161201160440.GA37187%40ucbvpn-209-54.vpn.berkeley.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Kolen Cheung]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2391 bytes --]

Ok, I've tried to attack this problem from another angle: I just contacted 
the publisher that the original author of the pirated materials (I guess 
which holds the copyright of the materials). I suggested them to file a 
DMCA takedown notice. If it works, it is a win-win: pandoc gets GitHub 
organization and pirated materials are gone.

I didn't do that earlier because I think "I didn't know the copyright owner 
in person, how could I contact him?". But in the hindsight, the publisher 
he found properly should own the copyright and can act on behave of him... 
Probably I think harder after knowing you are interested in having a pandoc 
GitHub organization officially.

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 8:05:30 AM UTC-8, John MacFarlane wrote:
>
> Yes, they have sent the message. 
>
> +++ Kolen Cheung [Dec 01 16 07:17 ]: 
> >Did the people from GitHub contacted them yet? In terms of negotiation, 
> since it is now at the mercy of @feixue, I think it is more polite to 
> contact him/her directly and plead for it. I open an issue there in 
> Chinese: <https://github.com/pandoc/feixueliantian/issues/1>. (I tried to 
> sound more like simplified Chinese but I'm actually trditional Chinese.) 
> > 
> >-- 
> >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "pandoc-discuss" group. 
> >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to pandoc-discus...-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org <javascript:>. 
> >To post to this group, send email to pandoc-...-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org 
> <javascript:>. 
> >To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/ef774ce1-5ce6-4648-9c2a-51ac8560f854%40googlegroups.com. 
>
> >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/47ecaf62-6f2f-4034-a320-415f7483f9cb%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4612 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Kolen Cheung]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3944 bytes --]



Going back to the KOMA-script template, a few questions:

   1. 
   
   looking at the diff., there aren’t huge differences between the default 
   template and the modified one. So my questions are:
   1. 
      
      Is there a way to rewrite it to incorporated into the default 
      template instead? For example, not only the template logic, but also LaTeX 
      logic might be used to check if…then.
      2. 
      
      If the above doesn’t work, is there a way to gather the diff and turn 
      it into a template “snippet”? (see more about template-snippet in 
      jgm/pandoc#3138 <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/3138>).
      3. 
      
      If the above doesn’t work either, is the combination of both 
      (rewriting the default template slightly to make it more general, and then 
      a template-snippet) works?
      2. 
   
   I wasn’t too serious about this point (because the analogy doesn’t quite 
   fit), but I think it might be worth mentioning: looking at docbook vs. 
   docbook5, epub vs. epub3, html vs. html5, there are variants of defaults 
   already. If it is called default.koma instead, then it won’t give people 
   a sense that “now we accept non-default templates as well” and then there’s 
   a flood of them. Again, the analogy isn’t quite right since koma isn’t 
   like e.g. LaTeX vs. ConTeXt for example.
   
I asked the 1st question because I think maintaining a folked version of 
the default templates is painful. It depends on git merge, and if the 
modified code mingled with the default code it requires manual editing. 
Also, it requires such merge every time you upgrade pandoc since there’s no 
guarantee your templates would work in the newer version of pandoc. This is 
in fact what started jgm/pandoc#3138 
<https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/3138>), in an attempt to simplifies 
template writing. If any answers of the 3 sub-questions is a yes, then we 
can avoid this “folk-merge” problem.

In my mind, if there’s some kind of centralized repository for templates, 
the guidelines will be something like “If possible, write your templates in 
template-snippet. A full template will only be considered when 
template-snippet is not an option.” Because that would definitely be a lot 
easier to maintain. Note that it is independent of jgm/pandoc#3138 
<https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/3138>), because a script can be 
written to auto-generate a required full-template from a template-snippet. 
(Although of course I favor at least an option to allow recursive 
templates!) On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 10:54:22 PM UTC-8, Václav 
Haisman wrote:

​Hi.
>
> I have submitted ​a pull request 
> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/pull/214> to jgm/pandoc-templates 
> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/> with a KOMA-script specific 
> LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only reaction I got to that was a 
> single thumbs up from a 3rd person. Today, I am here to ask if I should 
> submit the non-default template somewhere else where it would be more 
> appropriate or close the pull request and maintain the template just for 
> myself? Is there no interest in KOMA-script specific LaTeX template to 
> packaged with Pandoc? 
> ​
> -- 
> VH
>
​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/d0c9a451-b2c6-4cd2-80de-abde62022ae0%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 16161 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[John MacFarlane]

+++ Kolen Cheung [Dec 01 16 16:51 ]:
>    2. I wasn’t too serious about this point (because the analogy doesn’t
>       quite fit), but I think it might be worth mentioning: looking at
>       docbook vs. docbook5, epub vs. epub3, html vs. html5, there are
>       variants of defaults already. If it is called default.koma instead,
>       then it won’t give people a sense that “now we accept non-default
>       templates as well” and then there’s a flood of them. Again, the
>       analogy isn’t quite right since koma isn’t like e.g. LaTeX vs.
>       ConTeXt for example.

The extension is always the same as the target format.
So, unless we added 'koma' as a format (distinct from
'latex'), this can't be done.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/20161202103707.GC39638%40Administrateurs-iMac-3.local.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Václav Haisman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4288 bytes --]

On 2 December 2016 at 01:51, Kolen Cheung <christian.kolen-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Going back to the KOMA-script template, a few questions:
>
>    1.
>
>    looking at the diff., there aren’t huge differences between the
>    default template and the modified one. So my questions are:
>    1.
>
>       Is there a way to rewrite it to incorporated into the default
>       template instead? For example, not only the template logic, but also LaTeX
>       logic might be used to check if…then.
>       2.
>
>       If the above doesn’t work, is there a way to gather the diff and
>       turn it into a template “snippet”? (see more about template-snippet in
>       jgm/pandoc#3138 <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/3138>).
>       3.
>
>       If the above doesn’t work either, is the combination of both
>       (rewriting the default template slightly to make it more general, and then
>       a template-snippet) works?
>
> ​I do not know. I could not think of a better way than forking the
template.
​

>
>    1.
>
>    I wasn’t too serious about this point (because the analogy doesn’t
>    quite fit), but I think it might be worth mentioning: looking at docbook
>    vs. docbook5, epub vs. epub3, html vs. html5, there are variants of
>    defaults already. If it is called default.koma instead, then it won’t
>    give people a sense that “now we accept non-default templates as well” and
>    then there’s a flood of them. Again, the analogy isn’t quite right since
>    koma isn’t like e.g. LaTeX vs. ConTeXt for example.
>
> ​I do not think this is possible. It is still LaTeX.​



> I asked the 1st question because I think maintaining a folked version of
> the default templates is painful. It depends on git merge, and if the
> modified code mingled with the default code it requires manual editing.
> Also, it requires such merge every time you upgrade pandoc since there’s no
> guarantee your templates would work in the newer version of pandoc. This is
> in fact what started jgm/pandoc#3138
> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/3138>), in an attempt to simplifies
> template writing. If any answers of the 3 sub-questions is a yes, then we
> can avoid this “folk-merge” problem.
>
> In my mind, if there’s some kind of centralized repository for templates,
> the guidelines will be something like “If possible, write your templates in
> template-snippet. A full template will only be considered when
> template-snippet is not an option.” Because that would definitely be a lot
> easier to maintain. Note that it is independent of jgm/pandoc#3138
> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/3138>), because a script can be
> written to auto-generate a required full-template from a template-snippet.
> (Although of course I favor at least an option to allow recursive
> templates!) On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 10:54:22 PM UTC-8, Václav
> Haisman wrote:
>
> ​Hi.
>>
>> I have submitted ​a pull request
>> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/pull/214> to
>> jgm/pandoc-templates <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/> with a
>> KOMA-script specific LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only reaction
>> I got to that was a single thumbs up from a 3rd person. Today, I am here to
>> ask if I should submit the non-default template somewhere else where it
>> would be more appropriate or close the pull request and maintain the
>> template just for myself? Is there no interest in KOMA-script specific
>> LaTeX template to packaged with Pandoc?
>> ​
>> --
>> VH
>>
> ​
>
>
>


-- 
VH

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/CAKw7uVi8GQZSM%2BoVHFOxHme1vuM093PHY_xZv1JuVFTPwbRq5A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18135 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Kolen Cheung]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4732 bytes --]

Er... I've mentioned that point is not serious...

Anyway, if I've time I'll take a look of your template. Do you have some 
test files to test everything works accordingly?

On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:15:32 AM UTC-8, Václav Haisman wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2 December 2016 at 01:51, Kolen Cheung <christi...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org 
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> Going back to the KOMA-script template, a few questions:
>>
>>    1. 
>>    
>>    looking at the diff., there aren’t huge differences between the 
>>    default template and the modified one. So my questions are:
>>    1. 
>>       
>>       Is there a way to rewrite it to incorporated into the default 
>>       template instead? For example, not only the template logic, but also LaTeX 
>>       logic might be used to check if…then.
>>       2. 
>>       
>>       If the above doesn’t work, is there a way to gather the diff and 
>>       turn it into a template “snippet”? (see more about template-snippet in 
>>       jgm/pandoc#3138 <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/3138>).
>>       3. 
>>       
>>       If the above doesn’t work either, is the combination of both 
>>       (rewriting the default template slightly to make it more general, and then 
>>       a template-snippet) works?
>>       
>> ​I do not know. I could not think of a better way than forking the 
> template.
> ​
>
>>
>>    1. 
>>    
>>    I wasn’t too serious about this point (because the analogy doesn’t 
>>    quite fit), but I think it might be worth mentioning: looking at docbook 
>>    vs. docbook5, epub vs. epub3, html vs. html5, there are variants of 
>>    defaults already. If it is called default.koma instead, then it won’t 
>>    give people a sense that “now we accept non-default templates as well” and 
>>    then there’s a flood of them. Again, the analogy isn’t quite right since 
>>    koma isn’t like e.g. LaTeX vs. ConTeXt for example.
>>    
>> ​I do not think this is possible. It is still LaTeX.​
>
>  
>
>> I asked the 1st question because I think maintaining a folked version of 
>> the default templates is painful. It depends on git merge, and if the 
>> modified code mingled with the default code it requires manual editing. 
>> Also, it requires such merge every time you upgrade pandoc since there’s no 
>> guarantee your templates would work in the newer version of pandoc. This is 
>> in fact what started jgm/pandoc#3138 
>> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/3138>), in an attempt to 
>> simplifies template writing. If any answers of the 3 sub-questions is a 
>> yes, then we can avoid this “folk-merge” problem.
>>
>> In my mind, if there’s some kind of centralized repository for templates, 
>> the guidelines will be something like “If possible, write your templates in 
>> template-snippet. A full template will only be considered when 
>> template-snippet is not an option.” Because that would definitely be a lot 
>> easier to maintain. Note that it is independent of jgm/pandoc#3138 
>> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/3138>), because a script can be 
>> written to auto-generate a required full-template from a template-snippet. 
>> (Although of course I favor at least an option to allow recursive 
>> templates!) On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 10:54:22 PM UTC-8, Václav 
>> Haisman wrote:
>>
>> ​Hi.
>>>
>>> I have submitted ​a pull request 
>>> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/pull/214> to 
>>> jgm/pandoc-templates <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/> with a 
>>> KOMA-script specific LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only reaction 
>>> I got to that was a single thumbs up from a 3rd person. Today, I am here to 
>>> ask if I should submit the non-default template somewhere else where it 
>>> would be more appropriate or close the pull request and maintain the 
>>> template just for myself? Is there no interest in KOMA-script specific 
>>> LaTeX template to packaged with Pandoc? 
>>> ​
>>> -- 
>>> VH
>>>
>> ​
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> VH
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/c9018972-c57a-4aac-92e6-0a07f212f57f%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 20326 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Kolen Cheung]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1347 bytes --]

Digression:

As I'm looking at the diff of the templates, I think one minor but useful 
improvement to all the default templates: all lists breaks into individual 
lines.

This way, a merge conflicts will be much less likely to happen. And then 
visually it is also easier to see the diff, especially for long list.

The only downside probably is that the output is a bit larger. But I think 
if one cares the output size (say in HTML related output), one should 
compress the HTML output (independent of gzip delivery).

Another downside (immediately after the said change) is people might get 
*more* merge conflicts right after this change.

If @jgm would like to see this change, we can come up with a styling guide 
for templates, and I can submit a pull request there.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/cc3f8253-53c1-49da-93e0-bc92cc3b1b21%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1876 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Kolen Cheung]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2716 bytes --]



Looking more in details into the diff, it seems that if we enhance the 
“Variables for LaTeX”, it would solve the problem (s.t. the changes are 
incorporated into the default.latex template rather than a separate one).

e.g. if the template logic allows one to test $if(documentclass)=="scrbook"$ 
or $if(documentclass) in {"scrbook", ...}$.

If the enhancement in the template logic is not desirable, then may be 
expose one variable, say, koma, explicitly when the documentclass is one of 
the possible koma-script’s.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 1:21:40 AM UTC-8, John MacFarlane wrote:

So far we don't supply any non-default templates as part of 
> pandoc.  Let me explain my hesitation about changing this. 
>
> First, although I can certainly see a use for koma.latex, 
> once the door is open to default templates, there is 
> potentially no end to the submissions we might get. 
> Why not have templates for memoir, handouts, business letters, 
> and so on?  And these might be multiplied by the number of 
> supported formats.  Pretty soon we double or triple the 
> number of templates we support. 
>
> Is there a downside to this?  Yes, because each of these 
> templates needs to be maintained as pandoc evolves.  I get 
> bug reports for all of them.  So this could lead to a big 
> increase in maintenance burdens. 
>
> So perhaps it would be better to have a separate repository 
> or something to collect non-official, non-default templates? 
>
> +++ Václav Haisman [Nov 24 16 07:54 ]: 
> >   Hi. 
> > 
> >   I have submitted a [1]pull request to [2]jgm/pandoc-templates with a 
> >   KOMA-script specific LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only 
> >   reaction I got to that was a single thumbs up from a 3rd person. 
> Today, 
> >   I am here to ask if I should submit the non-default template somewhere 
> >   else where it would be more appropriate or close the pull request and 
> >   maintain the template just for myself? Is there no interest in 
> >   KOMA-script specific LaTeX template to packaged with Pandoc? 
> >   -- 
> >   VH 
>
> ​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/ff804832-3299-4692-a72f-044759c54f06%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 10020 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Václav Haisman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4932 bytes --]

On 3 December 2016 at 01:33, Kolen Cheung <christian.kolen-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

Er... I've mentioned that point is not serious...
>
> Anyway, if I've time I'll take a look of your template. Do you have some
> test files to test everything works accordingly?
>
​I do not have any test files. Use it with your own texts. Use scrartcl for
article, scrbook for book and scrreprt for report.


> On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:15:32 AM UTC-8, Václav Haisman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 December 2016 at 01:51, Kolen Cheung <christi...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Going back to the KOMA-script template, a few questions:
>>>
>>>    1.
>>>
>>>    looking at the diff., there aren’t huge differences between the
>>>    default template and the modified one. So my questions are:
>>>    1.
>>>
>>>       Is there a way to rewrite it to incorporated into the default
>>>       template instead? For example, not only the template logic, but also LaTeX
>>>       logic might be used to check if…then.
>>>       2.
>>>
>>>       If the above doesn’t work, is there a way to gather the diff and
>>>       turn it into a template “snippet”? (see more about template-snippet in
>>>       jgm/pandoc#3138 <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/3138>).
>>>       3.
>>>
>>>       If the above doesn’t work either, is the combination of both
>>>       (rewriting the default template slightly to make it more general, and then
>>>       a template-snippet) works?
>>>
>>> ​I do not know. I could not think of a better way than forking the
>> template.
>> ​
>>
>>>
>>>    1.
>>>
>>>    I wasn’t too serious about this point (because the analogy doesn’t
>>>    quite fit), but I think it might be worth mentioning: looking at docbook
>>>    vs. docbook5, epub vs. epub3, html vs. html5, there are variants of
>>>    defaults already. If it is called default.koma instead, then it
>>>    won’t give people a sense that “now we accept non-default templates as
>>>    well” and then there’s a flood of them. Again, the analogy isn’t quite
>>>    right since koma isn’t like e.g. LaTeX vs. ConTeXt for example.
>>>
>>> ​I do not think this is possible. It is still LaTeX.​
>>
>>
>>
>>> I asked the 1st question because I think maintaining a folked version of
>>> the default templates is painful. It depends on git merge, and if the
>>> modified code mingled with the default code it requires manual editing.
>>> Also, it requires such merge every time you upgrade pandoc since there’s no
>>> guarantee your templates would work in the newer version of pandoc. This is
>>> in fact what started jgm/pandoc#3138
>>> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/3138>), in an attempt to
>>> simplifies template writing. If any answers of the 3 sub-questions is a
>>> yes, then we can avoid this “folk-merge” problem.
>>>
>>> In my mind, if there’s some kind of centralized repository for
>>> templates, the guidelines will be something like “If possible, write your
>>> templates in template-snippet. A full template will only be considered when
>>> template-snippet is not an option.” Because that would definitely be a lot
>>> easier to maintain. Note that it is independent of jgm/pandoc#3138
>>> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues/3138>), because a script can be
>>> written to auto-generate a required full-template from a template-snippet.
>>> (Although of course I favor at least an option to allow recursive
>>> templates!) On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 10:54:22 PM UTC-8, Václav
>>> Haisman wrote:
>>>
>>> ​Hi.
>>>>
>>>> I have submitted ​a pull request
>>>> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/pull/214> to
>>>> jgm/pandoc-templates <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-templates/> with a
>>>> KOMA-script specific LaTeX template on August 27. So far, the only reaction
>>>> I got to that was a single thumbs up from a 3rd person. Today, I am here to
>>>> ask if I should submit the non-default template somewhere else where it
>>>> would be more appropriate or close the pull request and maintain the
>>>> template just for myself? Is there no interest in KOMA-script specific
>>>> LaTeX template to packaged with Pandoc?
>>>> ​
>>>>
>>>> ​
-- 
VH

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/CAKw7uViy434P65LGXUMyhkLneRhbcnzDArhOATeSQ6JVsyc15w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 26850 bytes --]

Re: KOMA-script specific LaTeX template.

[Kolen Cheung]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1620 bytes --]

What's @jgm opinion on this? And how about the `if` logic to test the 
documentclass such that the KOMA-script template can be embedded in the 
default LaTeX template?

On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 5:55:12 PM UTC-8, Kolen Cheung wrote:
>
> Digression:
>
> As I'm looking at the diff of the templates, I think one minor but useful 
> improvement to all the default templates: all lists breaks into individual 
> lines.
>
> This way, a merge conflicts will be much less likely to happen. And then 
> visually it is also easier to see the diff, especially for long list.
>
> The only downside probably is that the output is a bit larger. But I think 
> if one cares the output size (say in HTML related output), one should 
> compress the HTML output (independent of gzip delivery).
>
> Another downside (immediately after the said change) is people might get 
> *more* merge conflicts right after this change.
>
> If @jgm would like to see this change, we can come up with a styling guide 
> for templates, and I can submit a pull request there.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/696624b9-7b1b-4925-860d-0aa23adeab1f%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2271 bytes --]