Skip to content
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

Extract abstract section as GFM markdown file #55

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

compor
Copy link
Contributor

@compor compor commented Sep 19, 2024

This PR:

  • Allows to extract the abstract as a GFM markdown file (abstract.md) using pandoc for submission to fields like the one found in review management software like HotCRP (HotCRP supports markdown with LaTeX math support). It also supports paragraphs and typefaces (e.g., bold, emphasis).

Examples below in a dummy HotCRP site:

In raw markdown:
abstract_raw

In rendered markdown:
abstract_rendered

@compor compor added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 19, 2024
@compor compor self-assigned this Sep 19, 2024
@@ -226,7 +226,21 @@

% (http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2010/01/how-to-write-a-scientific-abstract-in-six-easy-steps/)

\lipsum[1]
% generated by lipsum
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I had to create some nuance in the abstract (paragraphs and math) and also use the expanded text from lipsum otherwise it gets removed by pandoc.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Have you tried it with our xDSL paper?
Is \toolname being replaced correctly, or is also removed by pandoc?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great point, I moved everything to Python and \toolname{} and along other similar definitions work now.
Would it make sense to have a requirements.txt? Not sure why we don't have one for the tools so far.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@math-fehr ping

Copy link
Contributor

@math-fehr math-fehr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Really cool!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants