LaTeX-export to ACM SIG Proceedings format

LaTeX-export to ACM SIG Proceedings format

[Karl Voit]

Hi!

For a short demo at a conference I tried to configure Org-mode LaTeX
export to generate a tex file which complies to the ACM SIG
Proceedings format[1].

The tutorial on [2] is great but unfortunately, I could not achieve
several things :-(

Maybe it might be a cool idea to work on this template together and
publish it on Worg? I can imagine that several people are trying to
meet those ACM template requirements ...


If not, I can summarize each problem I faced one by one if you are
interested: overruling \author{}, modifying \maketitle,
abstract-environment not working, bibtex not working, «#+name:
setup»-settings not working, ... and I did not even get started
working on the content :-)

  1. http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates
  2. http://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/org-latex-export.html
-- 
Karl Voit

Re: LaTeX-export to ACM SIG Proceedings format

[Thomas S. Dye]

Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:

> Hi!
>
> For a short demo at a conference I tried to configure Org-mode LaTeX
> export to generate a tex file which complies to the ACM SIG
> Proceedings format[1].
>
> The tutorial on [2] is great but unfortunately, I could not achieve
> several things :-(
>
> Maybe it might be a cool idea to work on this template together and
> publish it on Worg? I can imagine that several people are trying to
> meet those ACM template requirements ...

This seems like a good idea.  Would it be possible to target Nicolas
Goaziou's experimental LaTeX exporter, instead of the old exporter?

>
>
> If not, I can summarize each problem I faced one by one if you are
> interested: overruling \author{}, modifying \maketitle,
> abstract-environment not working, bibtex not working, «#+name:
> setup»-settings not working, ... and I did not even get started
> working on the content :-)
>
>   1. http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates
>   2. http://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/org-latex-export.html

Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com

Re: LaTeX-export to ACM SIG Proceedings format

[Karl Voit]

* Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
> Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:
>
>> Maybe it might be a cool idea to work on this template together and
>> publish it on Worg? I can imagine that several people are trying to
>> meet those ACM template requirements ...
>
> This seems like a good idea.  Would it be possible to target Nicolas
> Goaziou's experimental LaTeX exporter, instead of the old exporter?

Since I was using the PDF/LaTeX export just to make quick and dirty
files to send other people or pretty print, I was not aware that
there is another LaTeX exporter.

What would be the consequence of choosing the new one?

-- 
Karl Voit

Re: LaTeX-export to ACM SIG Proceedings format

[Jambunathan K]

Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:

> * Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
>> Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:
>>
>>> Maybe it might be a cool idea to work on this template together and
>>> publish it on Worg? I can imagine that several people are trying to
>>> meet those ACM template requirements ...
>>
>> This seems like a good idea.  Would it be possible to target Nicolas
>> Goaziou's experimental LaTeX exporter, instead of the old exporter?
>
> Since I was using the PDF/LaTeX export just to make quick and dirty
> files to send other people or pretty print, I was not aware that
> there is another LaTeX exporter.
>
> What would be the consequence of choosing the new one?

This should be obvious.  It will make it better.
-- 

Re: LaTeX-export to ACM SIG Proceedings format

[Thomas S. Dye]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:
>
>> * Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
>>> Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:
>>>
>>>> Maybe it might be a cool idea to work on this template together and
>>>> publish it on Worg? I can imagine that several people are trying to
>>>> meet those ACM template requirements ...
>>>
>>> This seems like a good idea.  Would it be possible to target Nicolas
>>> Goaziou's experimental LaTeX exporter, instead of the old exporter?
>>
>> Since I was using the PDF/LaTeX export just to make quick and dirty
>> files to send other people or pretty print, I was not aware that
>> there is another LaTeX exporter.
>>
>> What would be the consequence of choosing the new one?
>
> This should be obvious.  It will make it better.

One of the ideas behind the new exporter is that Org-mode source
prepared for one target can be easily exported to other targets.  I'm
keen to learn how to use it for the possibility of also exporting to a
target such as ODT that converts easily to Word, which I think all of my
clients use.  My brief experience with the LaTeX exporter so far has
been very positive and I'm relatively certain that it will be the
default export engine in the not too distant future.  If the ACM
template is written for the new exporter, then its use life will likely
be enhanced.

Also, I agree with Jambunathan's comment that exercising the new
exporter on a practical project might possibly indicate how it could be
made better.

On a practical note, using the new exporter is easy.  I have these
two lines (along with other configuration) in an Org-babel code block
that I use to setup Org-mode:

    (require 'org-export)
    (require 'org-e-latex)

Then, I can access the dispatcher with M-x org-export-dispatch and
choose the target.  It feels easy and natural from the get go.

All the best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com

Exporting to ACM format using new LaTeX exporter (was: LaTeX-export to ACM SIG Proceedings format)

[Karl Voit]

* Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
>
> One of the ideas behind the new exporter is that Org-mode source
> prepared for one target can be easily exported to other targets.  

I see. 

> My brief experience with the LaTeX exporter so far has been very
> positive and I'm relatively certain that it will be the default
> export engine in the not too distant future.  If the ACM template
> is written for the new exporter, then its use life will likely be
> enhanced.

Right.

> Also, I agree with Jambunathan's comment that exercising the new
> exporter on a practical project might possibly indicate how it
> could be made better.

To what extent does the new exporter differ from the features
described in the documentation and the tutorial?

Where is the new exporter described? I could only find [1].

> On a practical note, using the new exporter is easy.  I have these
> two lines (along with other configuration) in an Org-babel code
> block that I use to setup Org-mode:
>
>     (require 'org-export) (require 'org-e-latex)
>
> Then, I can access the dispatcher with M-x org-export-dispatch and
> choose the target.  It feels easy and natural from the get go.

So no more «C-c C-e d»?


OK, you convinced me that it would be better to use the new method
then. As you can see in my naive questions: I am not really familiar
withe the old exporter and neither with the new one. So using the
(good) documentation on the old one, I planned to contribute to this
template as much as possible. But I am not sure whether I can
contribute to the new one.

  1. http://orgmode.org/Changes.html
-- 
Karl Voit

Re: Exporting to ACM format using new LaTeX exporter

[Thomas S. Dye]

Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:

> * Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
>>
>> One of the ideas behind the new exporter is that Org-mode source
>> prepared for one target can be easily exported to other targets.  
>
> I see. 
>
>> My brief experience with the LaTeX exporter so far has been very
>> positive and I'm relatively certain that it will be the default
>> export engine in the not too distant future.  If the ACM template
>> is written for the new exporter, then its use life will likely be
>> enhanced.
>
> Right.
>
>> Also, I agree with Jambunathan's comment that exercising the new
>> exporter on a practical project might possibly indicate how it
>> could be made better.
>
> To what extent does the new exporter differ from the features
> described in the documentation and the tutorial?
>
> Where is the new exporter described? I could only find [1].
>
>> On a practical note, using the new exporter is easy.  I have these
>> two lines (along with other configuration) in an Org-babel code
>> block that I use to setup Org-mode:
>>
>>     (require 'org-export) (require 'org-e-latex)
>>
>> Then, I can access the dispatcher with M-x org-export-dispatch and
>> choose the target.  It feels easy and natural from the get go.
>
> So no more «C-c C-e d»?
You could bind those familiar keystrokes to the new command, if you like.

>
>
> OK, you convinced me that it would be better to use the new method
> then. As you can see in my naive questions: I am not really familiar
> withe the old exporter and neither with the new one. So using the
> (good) documentation on the old one, I planned to contribute to this
> template as much as possible. But I am not sure whether I can
> contribute to the new one.

AFAICT, the new exporter preserves most of the interface of the old
exporter, but smooths over some of the rough edges.  It shouldn't
represent a barrier to your contribution.  In fact, it might be useful
to write a template for both exporters, then document how they differ as
a guide to using the new exporter.

I took a brief look at the ACM web site and saw that there is more than
one LaTeX template.  Which one are you interested in for Org-mode?

Do you have a repository for the project?

All the best,
Tom

>
>   1. http://orgmode.org/Changes.html

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com

Re: Exporting to ACM format using new LaTeX exporter

[Karl Voit]

* Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
>
> AFAICT, the new exporter preserves most of the interface of the old
> exporter, but smooths over some of the rough edges.  It shouldn't
> represent a barrier to your contribution.  In fact, it might be useful
> to write a template for both exporters, then document how they differ as
> a guide to using the new exporter.

Good idea!

> I took a brief look at the ACM web site and saw that there is more than
> one LaTeX template.  Which one are you interested in for Org-mode?

I took the "Option 1: LaTeX2e - Strict Adherence to SIGS style"

> Do you have a repository for the project?

Yea, that might be appropriate. So I set up a github repos:

        https://github.com/novoid/orgmode-ACM-template

With the new exporter, I was not able to compile the Org-mode file
at all. Since the old exporter had troubles using this
"per-file-class" I do have a feeling that this might be the cause
for the error message with the new exporter too.

Maybe someone more familiar with the (new) LaTeX exporter can send
me some patches ...

-- 
Karl Voit

Re: Exporting to ACM format using new LaTeX exporter

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:

> * Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
>>
>> AFAICT, the new exporter preserves most of the interface of the old
>> exporter, but smooths over some of the rough edges.  It shouldn't
>> represent a barrier to your contribution.  In fact, it might be useful
>> to write a template for both exporters, then document how they differ as
>> a guide to using the new exporter.
>
> Good idea!
>
>> I took a brief look at the ACM web site and saw that there is more than
>> one LaTeX template.  Which one are you interested in for Org-mode?
>
> I took the "Option 1: LaTeX2e - Strict Adherence to SIGS style"
>
>> Do you have a repository for the project?
>
> Yea, that might be appropriate. So I set up a github repos:
>
>         https://github.com/novoid/orgmode-ACM-template
>
> With the new exporter, I was not able to compile the Org-mode file
> at all. Since the old exporter had troubles using this
> "per-file-class" I do have a feeling that this might be the cause
> for the error message with the new exporter too.
>
> Maybe someone more familiar with the (new) LaTeX exporter can send
> me some patches ...

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve. Would you mind
summarizing it for someone too lazy to browse docs?

Note that `org-splice-latex-header' belongs to neither the legacy
exporter nor the new one: it's an org.el function. Thus your problem may
lie elsewhere.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: Exporting to ACM format using new LaTeX exporter

[Karl Voit]

* Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,

Hi Nicolas!

> Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:
>
>> * Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
>>>
>> Yea, that might be appropriate. So I set up a github repos:
>>
>>         https://github.com/novoid/orgmode-ACM-template
>>
>> With the new exporter, I was not able to compile the Org-mode file
>> at all. Since the old exporter had troubles using this
>> "per-file-class" I do have a feeling that this might be the cause
>> for the error message with the new exporter too.
>>
>> Maybe someone more familiar with the (new) LaTeX exporter can send
>> me some patches ...
>
> I don't understand what you are trying to achieve. Would you mind
> summarizing it for someone too lazy to browse docs?

Sure: when I want to hand in a paper for a conference which demands
LaTeX documents that fulfill the requirements of the ACM template, I
want to have to possibility to use Org-mode with its LaTeX export
method in order to get PDF output which will be accepted by the
conference.

Most of the time, only the PDF have to look like the template
result, some times it is required to hand in also the TeX sources of
the paper.

> Note that `org-splice-latex-header' belongs to neither the legacy
> exporter nor the new one: it's an org.el function. Thus your problem may
> lie elsewhere.

Oh gosh.

I guess I have to strip down my Org-mode file and start all over
with a minimal version trying to expand until the error occures.

-- 
Karl Voit

Re: Exporting to ACM format using new LaTeX exporter

[Thomas S. Dye]

Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:

> * Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
>>
>> AFAICT, the new exporter preserves most of the interface of the old
>> exporter, but smooths over some of the rough edges.  It shouldn't
>> represent a barrier to your contribution.  In fact, it might be useful
>> to write a template for both exporters, then document how they differ as
>> a guide to using the new exporter.
>
> Good idea!
>
>> I took a brief look at the ACM web site and saw that there is more than
>> one LaTeX template.  Which one are you interested in for Org-mode?
>
> I took the "Option 1: LaTeX2e - Strict Adherence to SIGS style"
>
>> Do you have a repository for the project?
>
> Yea, that might be appropriate. So I set up a github repos:
>
>         https://github.com/novoid/orgmode-ACM-template
>
Hi Karl,

Got it, thanks.

IIUC, you'd like to configure Org-mode to export a LaTeX file that is
functionally equivalent to sigproc-sp.tex.  If this is the case, it
might be best to change the name of orgmode.org to sigproc-sp.org or
something similar.  If the goal is to support both exporters, perhaps
sigproc-sp-old.org and sigproc-sp-new.org?

In my view, it is best to encapsulate as much of the Org-mode
configuration as possible in an init.el file.  That way, users of the
Org-mode template can launch with emacs -Q etc. and not have to worry
about their own customizations that might conflict with the
configuration.  An example is here:  https://github.com/tsdye/LKFS.git.
Perhaps two initialization files would be needed: init-new.el and
init-old.el?

> With the new exporter, I was not able to compile the Org-mode file
> at all. Since the old exporter had troubles using this
> "per-file-class" I do have a feeling that this might be the cause
> for the error message with the new exporter too.

I'll have a look at this and send you patches off list.  

>
> Maybe someone more familiar with the (new) LaTeX exporter can send
> me some patches ...

All the best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com

Re: Exporting to ACM format using new LaTeX exporter

[Karl Voit]

* Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
> Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:
>
>>         https://github.com/novoid/orgmode-ACM-template
>>
> Hi Karl,

Hi!

> IIUC, you'd like to configure Org-mode to export a LaTeX file that is
> functionally equivalent to sigproc-sp.tex.  

Yes. If it is possible, I want to have an equivalent PDF and an
equivalent TeX as well.

> If this is the case, it might be best to change the name of
> orgmode.org to sigproc-sp.org or something similar.  

It has to be something similar. Otherwise the sigproc-sp.tex gets
overwritten by the exporter.

> If the goal is to support both exporters, perhaps
> sigproc-sp-old.org and sigproc-sp-new.org?

Good idea. I'll change it.

> In my view, it is best to encapsulate as much of the Org-mode
> configuration as possible in an init.el file.  That way, users of the
> Org-mode template can launch with emacs -Q etc. and not have to worry
> about their own customizations that might conflict with the
> configuration.  An example is here:  https://github.com/tsdye/LKFS.git.
> Perhaps two initialization files would be needed: init-new.el and
> init-old.el?

I was hoping that it is possible to encapsulate everything in the
Org-mode file instead. «#+name: setup» looked very promising to me
for that purpose ... (but so far I could not achieve any impact with
it)

>> With the new exporter, I was not able to compile the Org-mode file
>> at all. Since the old exporter had troubles using this
>> "per-file-class" I do have a feeling that this might be the cause
>> for the error message with the new exporter too.
>
> I'll have a look at this and send you patches off list.  

Great!


-- 
Karl Voit

Re: LaTeX-export to ACM SIG Proceedings format

[Achim Gratz]

Thomas S. Dye writes:
> On a practical note, using the new exporter is easy.  I have these
> two lines (along with other configuration) in an Org-babel code block
> that I use to setup Org-mode:
>
>     (require 'org-export)
>     (require 'org-e-latex)

Here's my chance to upsell the new build system to you: to use code from
contrib, just link or copy it into lisp, then do whatever you let make
normally do.  You usually don't need any extra requires since the
autoload cookies do their magic.  If it turns out you don't want or need
that code from contrib, simply remove the files from lisp and re-make.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf Blofeld:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds

Re: LaTeX-export to ACM SIG Proceedings format

[Mike McLean]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 555 bytes --]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012, Achim Gratz wrote:

>
> Here's my chance to upsell the new build system to you: to use code from
> contrib, just link or copy it into lisp, then do whatever you let make
> normally do.  You usually don't need any extra requires since the
> autoload cookies do their magic.  If it turns out you don't want or need
> that code from contrib, simply remove the files from lisp and re-make.


So if I do not copy/move/link code from contrib/lisp/ to lisp/ I could
still be using old contrib code from my Emacs system directories?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 765 bytes --]

Re: LaTeX-export to ACM SIG Proceedings format

[Achim Gratz]

Mike McLean writes:
> So if I do not copy/move/link code from contrib/lisp/ to lisp/ I could
> still be using old contrib code from my Emacs system directories?

There is no contrib code in Emacs unless you yourself installed it
there.  The advantage of copying to lisp is that you don't need to add
contrib to the load-path and mostly don't need any further setup beyond
(require 'org-install).  Also, the new files in lisp will be compiled
and installed just like anything else in lisp without further
configuration.  The latter of course means that you have to do a "make
cleaninstall" if you later decide you don't want to have them installed
anymore.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

SD adaptation for Waldorf rackAttack V1.04R1:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada

Re: LaTeX-export to ACM SIG Proceedings format

[Mike McLean]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 647 bytes --]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012, Achim Gratz wrote:

> Mike McLean writes:
> > So if I do not copy/move/link code from contrib/lisp/ to lisp/ I could
> > still be using old contrib code from my Emacs system directories?
>
> There is no contrib code in Emacs unless you yourself installed it
> there.  The advantage of copying to lisp is that you don't need to add
> contrib to the load-path and mostly don't need any further setup beyond
> (require 'org-install).


Sorry for the noise, I completely forgot that I added two directories (lisp
and contrib/lisp) to my load path. If I had thought a few more seconds
before replying, I would not have :(

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 963 bytes --]