-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 519
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
Updates AMS to V5 #348
Updates AMS to V5 #348
Conversation
It seems the check could not pass:
To solve this issue, you could change the latex engine from |
An optional plain language summary suitable for wider readership that provides additional context for why the work is relevant to science and society. It should be concise (≤120 words) and authors should follow the guidelines for significance statements (\url{https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/authors/journal-and-bams-authors/significance-statements/}) (currently MWR,WAF, and WCAS only). | ||
capsule: | | ||
A short (20-30 words maximum) capsule summary of your article (for BAMS only). | ||
bibliography: references.bib | ||
output: rticles::ams_article |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
change here to pass the check.
output:
rticles::ams_article:
latex_engine: xelatex
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it mean this format has to default to xelatex ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just for this template. It seems the bib file contain unicode character which will not map to output through pdflatex. Such issue blocked the check. Since the bib file might be from ASM, we could set the default engine to xelatex to be friendly to the user.
I added xelatex as latex_engine in the skeleton. |
@eliocamp If you had to copy the 150 lines of code of |
Sorry for the delay. V6 template for AMS is out. Should we consider V6 and abandon V5 here ? |
I am closing this PR in favor of #444. Thanks. |
Following #298.
I wanted to push this only after submitting and being given the A-OK from the good people at the AMS. But now it turns out I won't be submitting to that journal, so, well, here's the updated version of the AMS article template.