From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Xebar Saram Subject: Re: Organizing and taming hectic Academia work (faculty viewpoint)? Tips or a good guides sought after :) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:06:39 +0300 Message-ID: References: <7e093509.51e.14ddb300091.Coremail.chxp_moon@163.com> <161f0a5020b2f36c40a1e82a8af79089.squirrel@webmail.hafro.is> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfeac0ca97ee105186aecaf Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60049) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3qlO-000606-TW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:06:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3qlN-0004Ox-HR for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:06:42 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]:34044) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3qlN-0004Os-5q for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:06:41 -0400 Received: by pacgb13 with SMTP id gb13so10386854pac.1 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 12:06:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ken Mankoff Cc: Julian Burgos , windy , emacs-orgmode , John Kitchin , Holger Wenzel --047d7bfeac0ca97ee105186aecaf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi list and John Thank you all for all the great advice i will start incorporating them into my daily workflow John: org-ref looks great but is it also used for "managing" you references? that is searching for entries, grouping by keys, exporting them to html, adding etc. does it have a "table" view or other? if not what do you use for managing your references? best Z On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Ken Mankoff wrote: > Hi Julian, > > On 2015-06-10 at 10:16, Julian Burgos wrote: > > a) I first write in org-mode. Export to Word, either exporting first > > to ODT and then to Word, or to LaTex and then use pandoc to convert > > LaTex to Word. My coauthor can edit the document as he wishes, using > > the "Track changes" option. Then, I transcribe their edits back into > > the org-mode document. Advantage of this approach: your coauthor > > receives a clean word file, that could include figures, references, > > etc., and he/she uses the tools she likes to edit the file. > > Disadvantage: you have to manually incorporate the changes to the > > org-mode file each time there are edits. > > > > b) I write the manuscript in org-mode. Then I send the org-mode file > > to my coauthor. Because the org-mode file is just a text file, my > > coauthor can use Word to edit it. I ask him/her *not* to use "track > > changes" and to save the edited version also as a text file. Then, > > when I receive it I use ediff in emacs to compare both documents and > > incorporate the edits I want. Advantage of this approach: the merging > > of the documents is easy using ediff. Disadvantage: your coauthor has > > to edit a weird-looking document, with markup, code blocks, etc. > > It seems like with a bit of extra (scriptable?) work you could remove both > disadvantages. > > Why can't you use method (a) above, and then DOCX -> Org via pandoc (with > --accept-all option)? > > I know pandoc introduce some of its own changes to the Org syntax but not > the document itself. You can get around this. You can remove the > pandoc-generated changes automagically so that only co-author changes > appear in Org format, which you can then use with your (b) above and emacs > ediff. > > Original: Your Org source > A: Org -> DOCX for co-authors (using pandoc) > B: Org -> DOCX -> Org (using pandoc). > C: A -> Org (using pandoc and --accept-all-changes) > D: B-Original > > The difference between B and Original are pandoc-introduced changes that > you do not want. Ignore/remove these changes from C, call it D and then the > difference between D and the Original are your co-author comments. Now your > authors can edit DOCX with Track Changes and you can work on those edits > with Emacs ediff. > > -k. > > --047d7bfeac0ca97ee105186aecaf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi list and John

Thank you all for all = the great advice i will start incorporating them into my daily workflow

John: org-ref looks great but is it also used for &qu= ot;managing" you references? that is searching for entries, grouping b= y keys, exporting them to html, adding etc. does it have a "table"= ; view or other? if not what do you use for managing your references?
=

best

Z

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:0= 2 PM, Ken Mankoff <mankoff@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Julian,

On 2015-06-10 at 10:16, Julian Burgos <julian@hafro.is> wrote:
> a) I first write in org-mode. Export to Word, either exporting first > to ODT and then to Word, or to LaTex and then use pandoc to convert > LaTex to Word. My coauthor can edit the document as he wishes, using > the "Track changes" option. Then, I transcribe their edits b= ack into
> the org-mode document. Advantage of this approach: your coauthor
> receives a clean word file, that could include figures, references, > etc., and he/she uses the tools she likes to edit the file.
> Disadvantage: you have to manually incorporate the changes to the
> org-mode file each time there are edits.
>
> b) I write the manuscript in org-mode. Then I send the org-mode file > to my coauthor. Because the org-mode file is just a text file, my
> coauthor can use Word to edit it. I ask him/her *not* to use "tra= ck
> changes" and to save the edited version also as a text file. Then= ,
> when I receive it I use ediff in emacs to compare both documents and > incorporate the edits I want. Advantage of this approach: the merging<= br> > of the documents is easy using ediff. Disadvantage: your coauthor has<= br> > to edit a weird-looking document, with markup, code blocks, etc.

It seems like with a bit of extra (scriptable?) work you could remov= e both disadvantages.

Why can't you use method (a) above, and then DOCX -> Org via pandoc = (with --accept-all option)?

I know pandoc introduce some of its own changes to the Org syntax but not t= he document itself. You can get around this. You can remove the pandoc-gene= rated changes automagically so that only co-author changes appear in Org fo= rmat, which you can then use with your (b) above and emacs ediff.

Original: Your Org source
A: Org -> DOCX for co-authors (using pandoc)
B: Org -> DOCX -> Org (using pandoc).
C: A -> Org (using pandoc and --accept-all-changes)
D: B-Original

The difference between B and Original are pandoc-introduced changes that yo= u do not want. Ignore/remove these changes from C, call it D and then the d= ifference between D and the Original are your co-author comments. Now your = authors can edit DOCX with Track Changes and you can work on those edits wi= th Emacs ediff.

=C2=A0 -k.


--047d7bfeac0ca97ee105186aecaf--