Document or fix differences to Word template about lni HOT 22 OPEN

I just wanted to make a list of differneces as requested in #94 (comment).

from lni.

I opened several PRs:

• #104
• #103
• #102

from lni.

Thank you so much for the PRs and the thorough visual - comparison!

I am so sorry, I did not find the time yet to carefully merge and make a release. Will try these days!

from lni.

@csware Which tool did you use to visualize the differences?

I made screenshots using the very same PDF viewer and then used TortoiseGitIDiff for the comparison.

from lni.

I do not have a list of differences at hand. Maybe I find something in my notes. One would have to check/compare all layout parameters in order to decide what to do. However, as LaTeX and Word use different typesetting algorithms, there will never be the exact same output.

from lni.

A different typesetting should not be the problem, but the key elements like borders, headlines, headers/footers, title, abstract, authors, etc. should be congruent.

from lni.

Any updates here?

from lni.

@nise Did you find any (!) significant differences? When working in the template in the context of BTW 2017 (https://gi-ev.github.io/LNI-proceedings/#success-stories), there was not any significant (!) difference.

I am very aware that the font is "slightly" different. However, this does not matter in practise as readers are used to different appearance.

from lni.

The word template has ORCID included and the Latex-template has CC licenses included. Also, the latest Word version comes without headers (already supported using the norunningheads option).

from lni.

The scripts offered to compile the proceedings (documentation at https://gi-ev.github.io/LNI-proceedings/), crops the headers when compiling the proceedings. Thus, present/absent headers is no issue.

Regarding the ORCID: Please open a separate issue. I would ask for a screenshot of the word template so that the issue is self-contained.

from lni.

Recommendation to editors: Try to avoid mixing up papers written in LaTeX and Word within one volume due to inconsistent layout.
In fact this limitation is the killer for the LNI LaTeX template at many conferences. Since the majority prefers MS Word, LaTeX/PDF submissions will not be accepted.

Please read "recommendation" as "proposal", not as must. You can check the example proceedings linked from the proceeding howto page (https://gi-ev.github.io/LNI-proceedings/), you will see, that Word and LaTeX can be "perfectly" mixed. @nise

Everyone is welcome to make suggestions here. This template is voluntary work.

from lni.

@csware Thank you. I updated the issue title accordingly.

from lni.

Some more differences: The headline for "Literaturverzeichnis" (in Word template, 10pt) is wrong in the LaTeX template. (Sidenote: the German version of the template differs here to the English version ("Bibliography", 12pt, bold)).

The height of the authors seems to be too low and the size of the first headline is a bit bigger (the darker text is the LaTeX template). Before the last author there should be an "and".

Sometimes the y-position of the title is not the same.

The space between a paragraph an an itemize or enumerate is too big (the darker text is the LaTeX template):

(And one can clearly see that the typesetting of LaTeX is much better, much less spacings between the words).

from lni.

It's unclear how the keys should be constructed for "double names", i.e. author name such as "de Souza, Draylson Micael" -> "dS" or "Van Erick" -> "VE", cf. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002) generate keys with more then three characters.

from lni.

@csware This is more an issue for https://github.com/gi-ev/biblatex-lni, isn't it? OK, we have lni.bst here, too.

I thought that the bst file does it right?

I think, I put the LNI way into the "scientific thesis tempalte" at https://github.com/latextemplates/scientific-thesis-template. The example does not cover these cases (https://latextemplates.github.io/scientific-thesis-template/main-minted-german.pdf), but I think, I thought long how to handle "van der Aalst" - and it is "vdA" and "v" and "d" do not count towards the three letter limit. biblatex is configured as outlined at https://github.com/latextemplates/scientific-thesis-template/blob/fe8962dd0bb4e12225704b1aa667a9d183727cf6/config.tex#L662.

from lni.

Any news on the PRs?`

from lni.

@csware just for background information. It seems that "Geisteswissenschaften" handle it differently. Therefore the default "Literatur" in biblatex. See plk/biblatex#1319 (comment) for a discussion.

from lni.

@csware just for background information. It seems that "Geisteswissenschaften" handle it differently. Therefore the default "Literatur" in biblatex. See plk/biblatex#1319 (comment) for a discussion.

But this is the package for GI...

from lni.

As far as I understand @koppor he will adjust the title to "Literaturverzeichnis" within the package to meet GI requirements.

from lni.

ORCID iD is added. Resolving the visual differences should made it into v2.0

from lni.

@csware Which tool did you use to visualize the differences?

from lni.

But this is the package for GI...

Sure. This was a background information only. I tried to "upstream" the fix, but it was rejected, because other disciplines handle it differently. In https://github.com/gi-ev/biblatex-lni/blob/main/LNI-ngerman.lbx, the fix is in. An updated LaTeX installation should have the fix for "Literaturverzeichnis".

from lni.