Friday, July 21, 2017

install MacTeX june 2017, TeX LaTeX AMSTeX TeXShop BibDesk LaTeXiT TeXLive --> 5.8 Gb



MacTeX-2017
June, 2017
For Yosemite (macOS 10.10) and Higher

This installer provides all the software needed to use the TeX typesetting system on Mac OS X. All of the software is fully configured and ready to use. Included are

  • the actual TeX program, and the XeTeX extended version with Unicode and native font support;
  • macro packages, such as LaTeX, AMSTeX, and ConTeXt
  • TeXShop, graphical user interface for TeX
  • Ghostscript, required by certain TeX utilities

A custom install option is available for users who only need some of the software provided.

If you are new to TeX, consult the README installed in /Applications/TeX to begin learning and using TeX.
---

This installer provides all the software needed to use the TeX typesetting system on Mac OS X. All of the software is fully configured and ready to use. Included are
  • the actual TeX program, and the XeTeX extended version with Unicode and native font support;
  • macro packages, such as LaTeX, AMSTeX, and ConTeXt
  • TeXShop, a graphical user interface for TeX
  • Ghostscript, a free postscript interpreter used by certain TeX utilities
  • BibDesk, an editor for BibTeX databases
  • LaTeXiT, a utility to typeset LaTeX equations and export the resulting PDF by drag and drop
  • TeX Live Utility, a utility to administer TeX Live and update packages in it over the network
  • cocoAspell, an extension of Apple's built-in spell checker which understands LaTeX
  •  Excalibur, a spell checker for TeX source code

The underlying TeXLive distribution is extensive, containing most binaries, fonts, styles, and packages used in the TeX community. It is a repackaging of the full TeX Live distribution from the TeX Users Group (TUG), and installs that distribution exactly as it would appear if installed from the TeX Live DVD.

A custom install option is provided for users who want only part of the package. The package contains Ghostscript; users who already have Ghostscript may want to use custom install to avoid the version provided here. 

Among the programs installed by the package is TeXShop, a graphical interface to the TeX typesetting tools. TeXShop will be in your Applications folder in a subfolder named TeX and you can drag its icon to the dock if you wish. The TeX folder contains a README file explaining technical details of TeX Live for experienced users, and explaining how to start using and learning TeX for beginners.

Some programs in TeX need to know whether you are using letter-size paper or A4-size paper. The installer tries to guess the answer from your printer's default paper setting. This will work in almost all cases. If you run into problems, run TeX Live Utility in /Applications/TeX and select "Change Paper Size..." in the Actions menu. 

The installer adds BibDesk, Excalibur, LaTeXiT to the TeX folder in your Applications folder. All are standard Mac programs which can be uninstalled by just dragging them to the trash.

The TeX typesetting system consists of several command line programs and a large number of supporting files. These tools are installed in /usr/local, a directory not visible in the Finder. Inside the system Library folder you will find a subfolder named TeX; the Root file inside this folder is a link to the TeX directory tree which makes it visible to the Finder. So you can examine the files if you are curious.  It is usually not necessary to look at the command line files because they are automatically accessed by TeX as needed. 

If you have used TeX on another system, you may have needed to modify $TEXINPUTS, $PATH, and other shell variables; these are handled automatically on Mac OS X. Occasionally you will want to add additional style files and the like to TeX; to do so, create the directory "texmf" inside your personal Library folder in your home directory, and put additional files in subdirectories of this folder. For instance, LaTeX will find any file in

~/Library/texmf/tex/latex

or a subdirectory of this folder.


For more information about TeX, see http://tug.org, in particular http://tug.org/begin.html for links to a number of introductory resources. For more information about this MacTeX distribution, see http://tug.org/mactex.

Ref

http://www.tug.org/mactex/mactex-download.html

innovation des smartphone/téléphones à moins de 100euros avec 4G & écran 2K (ou très petit) & android ≥7 (et liste des tel pour MAJ) et... stratégie


Liste des tél qui peuvent être MAJ en 7.0 (été 2017):
http://www.frandroid.com/android/mises-a-jour-android/363539_android-n-liste-terminaux-mis-a-jour

En premier, un smartphone est
  1. un ordinateur complet avec E/S Wifi et wifi direct (hotspot to share wifi), BT 4 et USB 3, clavier/écran et quelques boutons, avec CPU quadri-coeur, GPU, ≥1 Go de RAM et ≥8 Go de stockage, autres puces électroniques...
  2. un stockage via SD (mémoire interne extensible) avec compatibilité SDXC (max 256Go), et E/S via connecteur SD
  3. connecteur(s) carte SIM,
  4. un téléphone cellulaire multibande, 
  5. un/deux (trois) appareils "photo/video", 
  6. une/plusieurs leds pour flash --> lampe électrique, communication optique/opto-électronique,
  7. un système d'entrée/sortie sonore (micro, prise jack, Haut-parleur, bouton volume)
    on peut donc l'utilise pour faire du controle via une sortie jack analogique par exemple TriggerTrap (pour déclencher un appareil photo ou autre)
    https://medium.com/triggertrap-playbook/triggertrap-for-ios-and-android-is-now-open-source-a194350e9cfc
  8. une radio, 
  9. une batterie (amovible) et donc un stockage d'énergie,
  10. un GPS, 
  11. un gyroscope (capteur pour repérer précisément la position et l'orientation de l'appareil dans l'espace) mesure de vitesse angulaire, 
  12. un g-sensor, (accéléromètre, un capteur de mouvement qui permet de mesurer l'accélération linéaire de votre smartphone), 
  13. un magnétomètre (compas).
Android is a Linux distribution according to the Linux Foundation, Google's open-source chief Chris DiBona, and several journalists. Others, such as Google engineer Patrick Brady, say that Android is not Linux in the traditional Unix-like Linux distribution sense; Android does not include the GNU C Library (it uses Bionic as an alternative C library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_(software)) and some of other components typically found in Linux distributions.
https://developer.android.com/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooting_(Android)

Je vais prendre comme exemple quelques sociétés "européennes" (made by or made in??) pour le domaine des smartphones à 100€ (été 2017). On voit qu'il y a convergence technique.

Jelly, un projet Kickstarter



Commençons par un téléphone "le plus petit" avec 4G et 7.0
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jellyphone/jelly-the-smallest-4g-smartphone

Unihertz is based in Shanghai and our team has over 10 years’ experience in cellphone design and manufacturing. Before creating our own products, we worked with many world-class cellphone brands in the past. After our success with our previous product, we have greatly improved and evolved our concepts and processes. We are excited to use Kickstarter as the launch pad for our best product.

Son écran de 2,45 pouces a une résolution de 240 x 432.
Dimension: 93 x 13 x 43 mm.
Il pèse 60g avec batterie.
Mais pour le reste, il sera à même d’assurer n’importe quelle tâche grâce à son processeur quad-core cadencé à 1,1 GHz, un appareil photo de 8 mégapixels au dos et 2 mégapixels à l’avant, ainsi qu’une batterie de 950 mAh. De quoi tenir 3-5 jours avec un usage normal.
Le Jelly se décline en deux modèles :
79€, une version standard avec 1 Go de RAM et 8 Go de stockage,
95€, une version Pro avec le double (2 Go de RAM, 16 Go de stockage).
From Aug 10th, 2017, the price of Jelly Pro will resume to the retail price of $125 and we don't sell Jelly anymore. The accessories will be the same discounted prices until further update. 

Un slot SD permet d’étendre la capacité de stockage, bien sûr.
On y trouve aussi un GPS+ gyro...
Certes, la bande des 700 MHz (B28) n'est pas de la partie, mais celles des 800, 1 800 et 2 600 MHz sont bien là, soit l'essentiel pour profiter de la 4G chez tous les opérateurs du territoire. L'autre bonne nouvelle pour ce produit, c'est la présence, sous la batterie (amovible), de 2 logements pour carte nano SIM en cohabitation avec l'espace pour la carte microSD (voir photo ci-dessus). Pas besoin de choisir — alors que c'est encore trop souvent le cas sur les mobiles double SIM — entre l'extension de stockage ou une seconde carte pour les communications !
 $9 to get one extra battery, or add extra $10 for one Armband, or add extra $19 for both.

Le Jelly étant un projet Kickstarter, il faudra le financer… ce qui est déjà très largement le cas.
~11000 contributeurs ont engagé ≥1 200 000 $ pour soutenir ce projet!!!

Le prix d’un appareil (le Jelly standard) est actuellement de 79 $ avec une livraison prévue en août 2017. Trois couleurs sont proposées : blanc, bleu et noir.
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/telephone-portable/jelly-plus-petit-smartphone-4g-monde-en-campagne-kickstarter-n62711.html
http://www.journaldugeek.com/2017/05/06/jelly-un-tout-petit-smartphone-4g-sous-android-nougat/

jelly étanche et anti-choc??
4G (1SIM)+2G(l'autre SIM) for the use of 2 SIM cards. We will keep working on it and hope we can make 4G+4G in Q4 2017...
à tester dès réception.

En outre l'effort est tout relatif pour l'optimisation de l'écran tactile sur la face avant, puisque la dalle n'en occupe que 41 %!
En fait le but est aussi de le relier à un vrai ordi pour avoir du 4G et les fonctions smartphones. L'écran n'est qu'un moyen temporaire de sortie pour le paramètrer et téléphoner/SMS.

Wiko

Wiko a annoncé deux nouveaux mobiles, les Sunny 2 (bof) et Jerry 2 (90€) après le Mobile World Congress de 2017 mais sans 4G.

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/telephone-portable/wiko-annonce-deux-nouveaux-mobiles-sunny-2-jerry-2-n65015.html

Contrairement à Archos, son concurrent, Wiko ne conçoit pas ses appareils en France, mais les produits sont importés et commercialisés via la PME Wiko Mobile, basée à Marseille. Ceux-ci utilisent généralement le système d'exploitation Android.
La société Wiko Mobile est fondée en 2011 à Marseille par Laurent Dahan en partenariat avec la société chinoise Tinno dont elle est une filiale à 95 %.
Les smartphones Wiko sont basés sur des composants de la société MediaTek. Cette dernière ne livrerait pas les sources de ses drivers ce qui empêcherait la portabilité de versions alternatives d'Android comme celle de CyanogenMod. Une pétition a été lancée pour demander à MediaTek la publication de ses sources.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiko

Archos

Créée en 1988, le nom de l'entreprise est l'anagramme de CROHAS, du nom de son créateur, Henri Crohas, actuel président du conseil d'administration.
L'entreprise vend principalement dans les années 1990 les lecteurs Overdrive (disque dur et CD), et le Scandoubler pour Commodore Amiga, puis les smartphones à partir de janvier 2014.
Les produits Archos sont principalement vendus en Europe. Fin 2004, l'opérateur de télévision par satellite EchoStar Communications investit 10 millions de dollars dans la société Archos en échange d'une participation de 26 % à terme.
partenariat avec ZTE/Nubia:
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/telephone-portable/archos-diamond-alpha-volonte-haut-gamme-a-349-euros-n63847.html
Il existe bcp de modèle à 100€.
http://www.lesmobiles.com/telephones/mobiles_archos.html
http://www.gsmarena.com/archos-phones-90.php

Quelques innovations comme le Stockage Fusionné Archos

Le Stockage Fusionné Archos est une technologie développée par ARCHOS qui permet d'étendre la mémoire interne de votre appareil grace à une carte micro-SD.
Par défaut, la mémoire globale de votre appareil est séparée entre la mémoire interne et la mémoire externe (caractérisée par votre carte micro-SD).
Par exemple, si votre appareil possède une mémoire de base de 8 Go et que vous activez le Stockage Fusionné Archos après avoir inséré une carte micro-SD de 64 Go, le système vous indiquera que vous disposez d'un total de 72 Go
Comment activer le Stockage Fusionné Archos ?
http://faq.archos.com/index.php?action=artikel&cat=17&id=419&artlang=fr
Après le redémarrage, la mémoire de la carte micro-SD aura fusionnée avec votre mémoire interne et vous ne verrez plus apparaitre votre carte depuis un ordinateur ou depuis votre appareil.
A noter que l'option Installer la carte SD dans la partie Stockage des paramètres est toujours visible mais cela n'a aucun effet une fois le Stockage Fusionné Archos activé.

Archos Sense 55DC

On peut trouver l'Archos Sense 55DC (sorti 02/2017) à 110€.
L'ARCHOS Sense 55DC intègre deux caméras: 13MP avec autofocus et flash LED + 2MP à l’arrière et 5MP à l’avant. Le double capteur assure une image plus nette avec plus de détails. Il offre un mode très grand angle, la possibilité de modifier la profondeur de champ à postériori ou encore de générer des effets Bokeh.
USB Type-C 3.0
Hardw
CPU : Mediatek MT6737, Quad-Core 1.5GHz
GPU : Mali T720
RAM : 2GB, DDR3
Internal Storage : 16 GB
Expandable Storage : Micro SD card, up to 128GB
écran
Diagonal Size : 5.5 inch
Resolution : 1280 x 720 (HD)
Technology Type : IPS, Full lamination, Curved 2.5D edges

Data Rates : 150Mbps / 50Mbps in 4G
Battery Size : 3000 mAh

lecteur d’empreintes digitales
ARCHOS Apps preinstalled : ARCHOS Video & ARCHOS Files
https://www.archos.com/fr/products/smartphones/sense/archos_sense55dc/index.html#specs

Sense 55s

Téléphones de juin 2017:
Sense 55s à 139€
http://labo.fnac.com/actualite/archos-sense-55s-un-prix-canon-pour-le-smartphone-a-ecran-sans-bord/
L'écran est une dalle tactile Full HD en base IPS de 5,5 pouces, soit une définition de 1920 x 1080 px sur une diagonale de 14 cm.

Gigaset

Gigaset Communications est une société allemande spécialisée dans les objets communicants et la téléphonie. Elle a son siège à Düsseldorf et existe en tant que tel depuis le 1er octobre 2005 après la dissolution de Arques Industries. Précédemment il s'agissait de la division téléphonie de Siemens.
Très connu dans le domaine des téléphones sans fil pour la maison, elle se lance dans le smartphone.
le GS160 est à 100€.
Ce smartphone arbore donc un écran IPS de 5 pouces affichant une définition HD (1280 x 720 px sur 12,7 cm de diagonale). Derrière s'agite une puce Mediatek MT6737 avec ses quatre cœurs cadencés à 1,3 GHz, un GPU Mali-T720 MP1 et 1 Go de RAM. Côté photo, le module principal pointe à 13 Mpx tandis que le frontal est limité à 5 Mpx. Question connectique sans fil, on retrouve l'habituelle compatibilité 4G, le Bluetooth 4.0 et une puce GPS. Le tout est complété par un lecteur d'empreintes au dos, une prise micro-USB ainsi que deux emplacements SIM et un emplacement microSD pour étendre la mémoire de 16 Go. Enfin, la batterie — amovible ! — pointe à 2500 mAh et tout ce beau monde est animé par Android 6.0 et pas de mise à jour!
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/telephone-portable/gigaset-gs160-p39095/test.html


Blablacar et concurrents gratuits sans commission de l'éditeur du site.


L’engouement pour le covoiturage est aussi un marché économique dominé par un acteur majeur qui s’est taillé un nom et un presque-monopole au point que pour beaucoup c’est le mot blablacar qui remplace le mot covoiturage dans les recherches sur Internet. On peut saluer le succès de l’entreprise comme le font depuis plusieurs années la plupart des médias.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlaBlaCar
Le 18 mai 2015, BlaBlaCar signe un accord d'assistance avec la société Axa pour assurer ses utilisateurs lors de leur déplacement.
Service que rend blablacar, notamment concernant l’assurance arrivée à destination garantie, ainsi que le rachat de franchise...
On peut aussi s’interroger sur cette confiscation et monétisation d’une pratique solidaire gratuite : le modèle économique de Blablacar repose sur la captation d’un bien commun.

Comparaison sur 5ans entre la recherche "covoiturage" et "blablacar" avec le moteur de Google sur 5 ans à partir du 20 juillet 2017.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=FR&q=covoiturage,%2Fg%2F11b5v2gkf7





On constate sur ce critère de "trends" que l'ouest est plus demandeur.


sans commision et gratuit pour le passager (vrai auto-stop)
https://www.laroueverte.com/
mais peu d'utilisateur...

Des économies plus importantes pour les conducteurs, des voyages vraiment moins chers pour les passagers et les prix sont fixés par les conducteurs (le site ne prélève aucune commission sur les trajets, nous ne vivons que de dons):
https://covoiturage-libre.fr/

le code source du site:
https://github.com/covoiturage-libre/covoiturage-libre
Une première version a été mise en ligne quelques jours seulement après le passage au payant de la part de Blablacar (ce devait être en 2011).

La première version a été développée en solo par Nicolas Raynaud. Le site à cette époque avait été écrit en PHP. C’est peu après qu’a été créée l’association pour soutenir la plateforme. Une nouvelle version du site a plus tard été écrite en Ruby on Rails, car la première version était difficile à maintenir et ne permettait pas vraiment un travail collaboratif. Cette nouvelle mouture du site est assez récente, date de moins d’un an, c’est maintenant sur celle-ci que nous travaillons, les améliorations étant poussées… lorsqu’elles sont prêtes à l’être.


Ref

https://framablog.org/2017/06/29/pour-un-covoiturage-libre-sans-blabla-car-cest-un-bien-commun/

Thursday, July 20, 2017

articles on Open access in Physics Today May 2017. Quantity of all scientific articles = 3 millions articles/year (2020)


The state of open access by Charles Day 

Physics Today 70, 5, 8 (2017); doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3535
On page 24 (see below) you’ll find David Kramer’s in-depth report on the current state of open-access publishing. Open access and its place in the landscape of academic journals have changed since November 2012, when Physics Today last covered the topic. Besides authors, publishers, and policy makers, other actors are now on the open-access stage, among them charitable foundations, scholarly collaboration networks, and, yes, pirates who post unauthorized copies of papers on Russian servers.
My attitude toward open access is conflicted. On the one hand, I agree that the fruits of publicly funded research should be freely available, especially to scientists in poor countries and to scientists employed by companies and colleges that can’t afford journal subscriptions. On the other hand, I’m well aware that Physics Today is funded in part by the profits that AIP’s publishing subsidiary makes from selling subscriptions to its 19 journals. If Physics Today had to rely solely on advertising and subscription revenue, it would have to shrink and change format.
Regardless of where you, I, or anyone else stands on open access, there are forces in play that are hard for publishers to resist. One of those forces arises from the nature of the principal end product of scholarly research, a paper that’s usually in the form of a PDF. The P in PDF stands for portable, which is what PDFs all too easily are. For Physics Today’s August 2009 issue, I wrote a feature article about iron-based superconductors, which had been discovered just two years earlier. Google Scholar lists 16 unauthorized PDFs of the article, 13 of which are on Chinese websites. (I couldn’t find the article on Sci-Hub, the pirate website founded by a Kazakhstani grad student.)
Portability isn’t the only disrupting force at play. University library budgets have not kept up with inflation or with the growth in the number of the world’s scientists and their output. The cash crunch is forcing librarians to scrutinize journals based on price and usage. Subscriptions to those that don’t meet increasingly stringent criteria are not renewed.
Despite those trends, some aspects of scholarly publishing remain the same. It’s just as hard now as it was in the 19th century to conceive of an experiment or theory that is both original and significant enough to be worth publishing in a scientific journal. Reviewing your peers’ papers before publication continues to be an unpaid yet valuable duty. And a paper’s final version of record still needs to be archived, online if not in bound volumes on library shelves.
When I ask physicists and other scientists how they choose where to publish their work, I tend to get the same answers. Scientists want their papers to be read, so they publish in journals that their peers read. A physicist told me once that he regretted publishing in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society because his fellow fluid dynamicists didn’t read that journal. Physics of Fluids, he mused, would have been a better choice.
Some physicists tell me that if they have a hot result, they’ll go for a journal with a high impact factor, such as Physical Review Letters, Nature, or Science. But in the digital age, as George Lozano, Vincent Larivière, and Yves Gingras discovered in an extensive bibliometric study, the correlation between a journal’s impact factor and a paper’s citations is weakening.1
One of the findings in David’s report in this issue is that open-access papers in the physical sciences currently make up just 10–12% of the total. That modest proportion likely reflects the continuing appeal and reputation of traditional journals. But as any marketing guru will tell you, appeal and reputation are intangible components of a brand. The contest for the best papers in physics will likely be won by the publishers who nurture those intangibles, regardless of access model.

REFERENCES

1. G. A. Lozano, V. Larivière, Y. Gingras, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tec. 63, 2140 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22731

Steady, strong growth is expected for open-access journals

Publishing models continue evolving to accommodate government mandates. Meanwhile, publishers look to cope with article-sharing sites that affect their business.
David Kramer
Physics Today 70, 5, 24 (2017); doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3550


In the more than 15 years since the advent of open-access (OA) journals, scientific publishers who once viewed them as an existential threat are now operating their own. But despite double-digit growth in OA, scientific societies and commercial publishers alike agree that the vast bulk of their publications will remain wedded to the traditional subscription model for the foreseeable future.
“Open access is much less of a contentious issue now,” says H. Frederick Dylla, retired executive director of the American Institute of Physics, which publishes Physics Today. “It’s happening. It’s a business model.” Of more concern to publishers today is the illicit posting of papers on article-sharing services. By some estimates, such as a 2014 report prepared for the European Commission, more than half of the scientific literature from 2007 to 2012 was accessible for free online. But it’s unclear how much of that content consists of papers that infringe on publishers’ copyrights because they are freely accessible despite licenses that are supposed to keep them behind paywalls.

Academic libraries face rising subscription costs for an ever-growing number of journals. Some libraries also underwrite researchers’ costs for publishing in open-access journals.

Broadly speaking, scientific publishing follows two models. Traditionally, most journals obtain their revenues from institutional subscribers, mainly universities. Outside those licenses, the journal content is located behind an online paywall. So-called gold OA journals provide their entire content for free online immediately upon publication. Their revenues are provided from fees, known as article processing charges, paid by the article authors or their institutional funders.
A second category, known as green OA, consists of nongold OA articles that are freely available in one of the following forms: An article may be made available prior to publication as a preprint. A manuscript version may be provided by the publisher so authors can post it to their websites and institutional archives at the time it is accepted for publication. Or it can be released in its final published form, known as the version of record, after a specified period, most often one year after publication (this is sometimes referred to as delayed gold OA). Most scientific papers today are or will become available in some fashion as green OA.
The extent of fully OA publishing, like that of journal publishing overall, is hard to measure. About 800 of the 11 000 or so journals included in Journal Citation Reports, the Clarivate Analytics (formerly Thomson Reuters) service that calculates the widely used journal impact factors, are gold OA. Of the 21 500 journals tracked by Scopus, an abstract and citation database, around 3500 are gold OA titles. But less exclusive indexes, such as the Directory of Open Access Journals, count more than 9300 journals published in 129 countries. Estimates of the total scientific journal population—subscription and OA—range from a low of 33 000 to a high of 60 000, depending in part on where the line is drawn between scholarly and trade journals.
The International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers, whose 120 members publish two-thirds of all STM journal articles, estimated annual revenues for English-language STM journal publishing at $10 billion in 2015, up from $8 billion in 2009. Delta Think, a scholarly publishing consulting firm, valued the fully OA journal market last year at $374 million, and for 2017 it forecasts growth of 12%, roughly twice the rate of growth in the overall journal market. “Going forward, we think that the open-access market will continue to grow at about 10% to 15% through 2020,” says Delta Think’s Dan Pollock.

MANDATES AND ARCHIVES

The growth of OA is largely driven by dozens of governments around the globe that have mandated free access to the results of publicly funded research. In most cases, including in the US, those mandates require grantees to make their papers free after a one-year embargo. The same applies in the UK, where the government also sets aside funding to pay for gold OA. The European Union requires grantees of its €80 billion Horizon 2020 program to provide free access within six months of publication (see Physics Today, March 2014, page 26).
In the US, the major federal research-funding agencies have chosen several public repositories for their sponsored research. The largest, PubMed Central (PMC), has been operated by the National Institutes of Health since 2000. In addition to NIH-funded research, PMC has been designated by NASA, NIST, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and other, smaller funding agencies to house their research results.
The Department of Energy, NSF, US Geological Survey, Department of Defense, Smithsonian Institution, and Department of Agriculture have chosen to link their individual repositories to the Clearinghouse for the Open Research of the United States (CHORUS) database, established by a consortium of journal publishers. As of 30 March 2017, the CHORUS repository held 327 000 articles, of which 74 000, just under 25%, were post-embargo and freely accessible.
Unlike PMC, where articles are deposited in their entirety, CHORUS directs users to the participating publishers’ websites. The distinction is important for publishers, who want to attract traffic.
In response to public mandates, the majority of subscription journals now offer the option for authors to pay an article processing charge to make their articles immediately OA. That so-called hybrid model currently accounts for about 4% of published papers (see the figure on page 26). But at some future theoretical tipping point, says Ken Heideman, publications director at the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the amount of free content could outweigh the subscription-only articles and force publishers to lower their subscription rates. “If you think of the whole of your content as a piece of cheese, pretty soon the hole gets bigger and it’s Swiss cheese,” he says.


Numbers of scientific articles published in fully open-access (gold) journals 
and of fully open-access articles in subscription journals (hybrid) 
are increasing at a faster rate than are numbers of articles in subscription-only journals. 
Nearly all articles ultimately become freely available 
in some form (green open access), 
often after an embargo period. (Data provided by Elsevier.)

Some nonprofit research funders, notably the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Max Planck Society, now require gold OA publication of their sponsored research. Some organizations also may permit publication in hybrid journals.

Some nonprofit research funders, notably the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Max Planck Society, now require gold OA publication of their sponsored research. Some organizations also may permit publication in hybrid journals.

THE ECONOMICS

It’s clear that the subscription model remains more lucrative. Journal publishers receive, on average, about $5000 per article from subscriptions, according to industry consultant Joseph Esposito in the Scholarly Kitchen blog in December 2016. But article processing charges for OA journals generally are only $1000–$1500 per article.
While they contain as much as 18% of all journal content, gold OA journals and gold articles in hybrids produce just 3–6% of all publishing revenues. A smaller proportion of articles in the physical sciences, some 10–12%, are published in OA journals, Pollock says. The disparities between content and revenue probably reflect the fact that OA is still a relatively young market, with publishers discounting article processing charges, he says.
Two of the 11 AMS journals, including the flagship Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, are gold OA. Heideman says physical sciences have been “dragged along” to OA by the biomedical community. “We certainly agree that open access is a good thing within the limits of our business model. But it isn’t one size fits all. We’ll continue to do it incrementally.”
AMS decided a year ago to make all content of its nine subscription journals freely available after a one-year embargo, regardless of funding source. It was felt to be unfair to authors not subject to mandates to have their work remain stuck behind a paywall.
But Heideman regards the finite embargo period as an experiment, and its financial impact on AMS is uncertain. “We’re banking on the fact that libraries are still going to see the value in subscribing to our content rather than waiting for a full year to get it free. We feel confident, but there are no guarantees,” he says. “So far we haven’t seen anything that would alarm.”
With more than 200 gold OA journal titles, Elsevier is second to Springer Nature in the number of fully OA journals published. All but 200 of Elsevier’s 2300 subscription journals are hybrid, and roughly 20 000 of the 420 000 articles published in Elsevier journals last year were gold OA. Elsevier policy and communications director Gemma Hersh sees gold OA continuing to grow alongside subscription. In addition, she says, “we’re doing a lot of work with institutions in the US and globally to make green open access more effective and workable.”
Nature Research, a component of Springer Nature and the parent company of Nature and its related journals, declined an interview request. However, a spokesperson said in a statement that the company offers more than 70 journals with OA options, from the multidisciplinary Nature Communications to highly specialized titles such as the 25 Nature partner journals, which are published in association with academic institutions, philanthropies, and membership organizations.
Nature Research believes the subscription model is the best way to provide sustainable and widespread access to journals with low article-acceptance rates, the spokesperson said.
OA is a particular challenge for highly selective journals such as Science and Nature, which publish fewer than 10% of submissions and thus have a considerably higher cost per article published. Jeremy Berg, editor-in-chief of Science, says, “A substantial part of your costs relates to processing, peer reviewing, and so on, for papers you end up not accepting.” A 2013 report in Nature put that magazine’s per-article cost at $30 000 to $40 000. For both flagship publications, advertising and income from other journals offset those high costs. Berg says there have been discussions about adopting hybrid models for Science and the four other Science-branded journals (a fifth, Science Advances, is fully OA).
PLOS, founded by former NIH director Harold Varmus and other prominent scientists in 2001 as one of the original all-OA publishers, in 2007 created PLOS One, a multidisciplinary online platform. As of 30 March, PLOS One had published nearly 18 000 physics articles. Its “megajournal” model differs from nearly every other journal in that research need not be novel, although it still must be sound and is peer reviewed.
After peaking at 31 500 in 2013, annual submissions to PLOS One fell to 22 000 last year. The decline came as other publishers started up copycats such as Nature Research’s Scientific Reports. Some observers, including Phil Davis, a publishing consultant, have questioned PLOS’s continued viability should PLOS One continue to shrink. And David Knutson, PLOS communications manager, acknowledges that PLOS One accounts for the “lion’s share” of parent company revenues, which help to offset costs of PLOS’s four biomedical journals. But Knutson says that the company remains in strong financial shape and that PLOS One today is “at the point where it’s healthy and sustainable.” PLOS’s reported net assets were steady at $30 million from 2014 to 2015.
PLOS considers itself an advocacy organization, and Knutson notes that former CEO Peter Jerram once asserted that should it be put out of business by other OA publishers, it will have accomplished its mission.
Davis is concerned that the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to research could cause a falloff in demand for OA publishing, since authors will have less funding to pay article processing charges. Some university libraries offer support for researchers to pay for publication, even as they claim to have insufficient funds to afford subscriptions to thousands of journals. “Should they be spending $3000 on buying access to a really excellent collection of journals or pay for one paper to be published?” Davis asks.

PHYSICISTS’ VIEWS

Physics-related papers have routinely been shared on the arXiv website since the 1990s. Those preprints typically are posted prior to the peer-review and editing processes that are performed by publishers. University of Maryland physicist Daniel Lathrop says posting to arXiv “satisfies our intent to have open access,” and he notes that the preprint includes both figures and the basic conclusions. “It’s not clear to me why you need open access in the refereed journal as long as it’s the common practice” to post on arXiv, he says.
Still, Lathrop acknowledges that some fellow authors, particularly younger ones, feel strongly about OA, and their views will be considered in deciding where to submit a paper. But a more important consideration, particularly for young researchers, is the reputation and impact factor of the journal.
David Helfand, a Columbia University astrophysicist, sees OA as largely irrelevant to all but “the few people who are ideologically committed to it, who believe it’s just right,” and to those whose sponsors require publishing in OA journals. Helfand, a past president of the American Astronomical Society, says free public access to AAS’s journal content is available through US public libraries. “The number of times this has been used in the past few years can probably be counted on your fingers,” he says.
In AAS’s publishing model, two-thirds of revenues are from article processing charges, with the remainder derived from subscriptions. Should funding for US science drop, Helfand worries that astronomers may submit their work to Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, which has no author charges but costs institutions more than $14 000 a year.
“I don’t think if AAS went gold it would change very much, because 98% of the papers are publicly available the day they are accepted, or several weeks before that” in arXiv, he says. A larger problem for public access, he thinks, is scientists’ failure to write in “actual understandable English.”
Helfand’s and Lathrop’s views are supported by author surveys. In a 2015 Nature Publishing survey of its authors, 18 000 respondents ranked an OA option 14th on a list of 17 factors driving the choice of where they submit articles.
Paul Hardaker, chief executive of the UK’s Institute of Physics, which publishes more than six dozen journals, says its 2015 author survey also placed OA well down the list of considerations. “There is quite clearly a small community of strong advocates for open access, but it’s not reflected in the response we’ve had from the broader community.”
However, some view OA as an imperative. Daniel Kammen, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, is editor-in-chief of the decade-old OA journal Environmental Research Letters. Kammen says it is “absolutely the case” that all academic research should be open access, whether its funding comes from public or private sources. “The primary mission of a researcher is to be in some sense H. L. Mencken’s public intellectual,” he says, which requires that both the paper and the underlying data be openly accessible. OA, he says, needs to rapidly get research results out “in a world where research is competing with tweets and Instagram and all these rapid things.”

A CITATION ADVANTAGE?

A long-standing debate has surrounded whether research will be cited more frequently in other scientific articles if it is openly available. Several studies have identified a citation advantage for such research articles. The OA advocacy organization Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) maintains a scorecard of 70 citation studies, 46 of which find an advantage for OA articles. Seventeen others find no advantage, and 7 are inconclusive.
One of the more recent reviews, released in August 2016 by Science-Metrix and 1science, finds a 50% citation advantage for OA articles compared with subscription ones that aren’t subsequently made open through green OA options. But a September 2016 report by Hersh and coauthor Andrew Plume claims that and other studies’ methodologies are flawed, principally because of selection bias caused by a lack of randomization and control. Authors could be choosing OA journals for their most important research, for example, or researchers from elite institutions may be authoring a disproportionate share of OA articles.
By some accounts, a 2011 review by Davis is the sole randomized and controlled study to date. He concludes that while OA articles received significantly more downloads and reached a broader audience in the first year, they were cited no more frequently, nor any earlier, than subscription-access articles over the three-year study period.

BEYOND OPEN ACCESS

Publishers are trying to accommodate demand for OA while maintaining the subscription model. Last October, Springer Nature launched a content-sharing initiative to encourage “reasonable” free sharing with nonsubscribers by authors of articles in the publisher’s 2300 journals, including Nature titles. Immediately upon publication, authors are provided shareable links to their papers, which can be viewed but not downloaded. The links can be posted anywhere, including the author’s website, article-sharing sites known as scholarly collaboration networks (SCNs), and social media. Notably, an earlier year-long pilot version of the shared links program involving 50 journals resulted in no loss of institutional sales for the subscription-based journals.
Dylla sees figuring out how to deal with the SCNs as the new challenge for publishers. SCNs help scientists collaborate at all stages of their research and raise the visibility of their results, says Hersh of Elsevier, which owns Mendeley, the third largest SCN. Smaller SCNs have been around for decades. But the two largest—Berlin-based ResearchGate claims 10 million members and San Francisco-based Academia.edu boasts 50 million academic users—were founded in 2008 and are funded by venture capital.
Many articles shared on SCNs have been posted contrary to licensing agreements, intentionally or not. “They have a mixture of proper and improper content,” says Dylla. Publishers seem to have reached a consensus to allow articles to be shared privately among collaborators, he says, in the same way that authors would mail reprints of articles to colleagues in the pre-electronic era. But there is a limit to how broadly a paper can be shared, and the particular version that can be shared, without jeopardizing the publishers’ ability to solicit, review, produce, and archive the content, he notes.
The International Association of STM Publishers has developed voluntary principles for article sharing and operates a website, How Can I Share It, to inform researchers about which versions of articles they can properly share. “The aim is not in any way to shut down collaborations but to make sure the ecosystem works effectively,” says Hersh.
To counter unauthorized content sharing, Dylla says publishers should strive to make content accessible with one-click convenience, akin to accessing movies on Netflix. “If you’ve got a single password, it doesn’t matter if you’re on a phone, iPad, or desktop, you can get to it and it comes right back to where you left off,” he says. “Try that with journals.” The music industry too, he adds, managed to avoid extinction from rampant piracy by working with Pandora, YouTube, and other providers to share revenues.

Ref.

© 2017 American Institute of Physics.

HUB text/PAO une syntaxe pour différentes cibles input et output (backends, targets ou writers), de manière à obtenir du HTML du LaTeX, page de man: pandoc


hexadécimal

Au départ si on a que du texte sans mise en forme, on peut écrire en hexadécimal comme dans ma jeunesse des années 70 (en ASCII ou étendue pour les caractères français par exemple). Il suffisait de connaitre par coeur la table ASCII de 128 correspondances qui est une norme informatique de codage de caractères des années 60. Et tout cela avec un clavier de 0-9 et A-F soit 16 touches (même pas une touche carriage return  car c'est le code #D ni même une touche espace car c'est #20)!
http://ascii.cl/
Et pour l'histoire:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Code_for_Information_Interchange

C'était clair, il y avait celui qui tapait ses idées au kilomètre puis celui qui mettait en forme.

que du text mis en forme (et un peu de "PAO") et comparaison des softs

Si on a que text (par exemple ASCII ou UTF-8) c'est assez simple.
Avec du balisage léger et des transcodeurs, on a du Hub-text.
voir une liste partielle des output formats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_markup_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_document_markup_languages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_documentation_generators
(and  programming languages).
example: ROBODoc is a documentation tool similar to Javadoc and licensed under the GPL. It is used to extract API documentation from source code. It can be used with any language that supports comments and works by extracting specially formatted headers. These are then reformatted into HTML, DocBook, TROFF, ASCII, LaTeX, PDF, or RTF.
It can be used to document any programming artifact, such as: classes, functions, tests, makefile entries, etc.
ROBODoc works with C, C++, Fortran, Perl, shell scripts, Assembler, DCL, DB/C, Tcl/Tk, Forth, Lisp, COBOL, Occam, Basic, HTML, Clarion, and any other language that supports comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROBODoc


Une analyse que je partage

Comparaison des langages de balisage (markup) léger (lightweight) : Txt2tags, Pandoc, Docutils, AsciiDoc, Deplate, Stx2any, AFT, Markdown et Textile:
http://fgallaire.flext.net/comparaison-langage-balisage-markup-lightweight-leger-txt2tags-pandoc-docutils-asciidoc-deplate-stx2any-aft-markdown-textile/

La bureautique est la principale utilisation de l’informatique depuis sa création. Pourtant, les outils majoritairement utilisés dans ce domaine, les logiciels de traitement de texte WYSIWYG comme LibreOffice ou MS word, laissent la majorité des informaticiens et des ergonomes totalement désespérés.
Ces logiciels ont en effet un nombre de défauts très important : ils font se concentrer sur la forme et non sur le fond, leur résultat final ne correspond souvent pas à ce qui est affiché, ils sont incompatibles entre eux, ce sont d’énormes usines à gaz, ils ne fonctionnent qu’en mode graphique, etc.

Il a donc fallu penser à une manière de donner ces instructions de mise en forme au sein du fichier texte lui-même, et c’est ainsi que sont apparus les langages de balisage (markup), dont les plus connus sont HTML (inventé en 1991 par Tim Berners-Lee) et LaTeX (créé en 1985, et basé sur TeX, inventé par le grand Donald Knuth en 1977), et dont la première grande figure fut Roff, un programme Unix historique développé à partir de 1961, et dont la version GNU, Groff, est installée par défaut sur toutes les distributions GNU/Linux, puisqu’on l’utilise encore pour les pages de man des logiciels.

Ces langages représentent une nette amélioration, mais ont tous un gros problème : ils sont gênants ! On ne retrouve plus aussi facilement son contenu au milieu de toutes ces balises supplémentaires, sans parler du fait que les syntaxes complexes ouvrent la voie à de nombreuses erreurs de compilation.

C’est en 1995 que l’on trouva la solution de ce problème, avec la création du premier langage Wiki, dont le but principal était de permettre l’édition facile de pages web par tout un chacun, et dont l’utilisateur actuel le plus célèbre est l’encyclopédie libre Wikipédia. S’il y a presque autant de syntaxes différentes que de logiciels Wiki, elles ont toutes la caractéristique d’utiliser des caractères textuels simples et intuitifs pour donner les indications de formatage du texte.
http://www.wikicreole.org/wiki/Reasoning

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide:Syntaxe_(wikicode)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide:Ins%C3%A9rer_un_tableau_(wikicode,_avanc%C3%A9)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:BUtilisateur
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki/fr

J'ai toujours aimé le principe du "folding editor".
le premier fut STET  'STructured Editing Tool' de 1977
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STET_(text_editor)
A folding editor is a text editor which supports text folding or code folding, a mechanism allowing the user to hide and reveal blocks of text—usually named. Typically this is done to allow the user to better picture the overall structure of a document or program.
Folding is provided by many modern text editors, and syntax-based or semantics-based folding is now a component of many software development environments...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_editor


Mais pourquoi limiter ces langages de balisage léger à la seule génération de HTML ? Pourquoi ne pas utiliser la même syntaxe pour différentes cibles (appelées backends, targets ou writers selon les logiciels), de manière à obtenir aussi bien une page web en HTML, qu’un document en LaTeX pour l’impression, ou qu’une page de man pour un logiciel ? Ce sont les logiciels qui poursuivent ce but qui m’intéressent, ils constituent pour moi l’avenir de la bureautique informatique, et j’ai été amené à les comparer pour en choisir un dans lequel m’investir comme développeur.

Trois d’entre eux, Docutils, Deplate et Pandoc, ont un design évolué, avec une machine à états finis pour laquelle on peut écrire de nouveaux readers et writers de manière parfaitement propre. Cependant, malgré leurs grandes qualités, Deplate est un projet trop confidentiel (ainsi il n’est incompréhensiblement pas présent parmi les pourtant si nombreux paquets Debian), et je ne me sentais pas à la hauteur pour m’investir dans un projet comme Pandoc, totalement écrit en Haskell, qui est un langage de programmation complexe que j’aimerais beaucoup utiliser.
Je détaillerai Pandoc ci-dessous.

Txt2tags

J’ai rajouté dans ce comparatif Markdown et Textile, puisqu’ils ont chacun une implémentation en Python, mais ne générant que du HTML, ils ne m’intéressaient pas vraiment. AsciiDoc et Txt2tags ont un peu la même architecture, avec un gros fichier principal faisant tout le travail, que l’on peut configurer, respectivement avec un fichier .conf et deux dictionnaires Python (un pour les Tags et l’autre pour les Rules), pour créer de nouvelles cibles. AsciiDoc et Txt2tags sont donc plus aisés à prendre en main et à modifier rapidement que Docutils, qui est une très belle et très bien architecturée machine à états objet, mais aussi plus difficile à appréhender.
De plus, comme je désapprouvais totalement la politique de licence domaine publique de Docutils, il ne me restait plus qu’à faire mon choix entre Txt2tags et AsciiDoc. C’est principalement l’orientation très DocBook (un format ne m’intéressant personnellement pas du tout) d’AsciiDoc, et d’autres détails, comme la localisation en de nombreuses langues de Txt2tags et sa plus grande simplicité, qui m’ont finalement fait choisir Txt2tags.

Ce choix est confirmé par une étude plus avancée des différentes syntaxes. Ainsi alors que la syntaxe reST de Docutils ne dispose que de :

*italique* et **gras**

Txt2tags est beaucoup plus riche :

//italique// **gras** __souligné__ et --barré--

Le codage visuel est bien meilleur, et le compréhension instantanée avec la syntaxe de Txt2tags, puisque les slashs donnent l’impression penchée de l’italique, les étoiles imitent la surcharge du gras, les underscores donnent l’impression de soulignement, et les moins apparaissent comme une barre. De plus, l’utilisation généralisée des caractères de balisage en doubles, permet de lever à peu de frais un maximum d’ambiguïtés syntaxiques.

insertion d'une image est beaucoup plus simple Txt2tags
[[picture.png] http://fgallaire.flext.net]

Leur implémentation en Python permet à Txt2tags, reST (par Docutils) et AsciiDoc d’être utilisables à la fois comme logiciels de bureautique multiplateforme (Linux, Mac OS X, Windows et *BSD) et pour le web côté serveur. Depuis 2012, une implémentation de txt2tags en PHP est disponible, développée par Petko Yotov (le mainteneur et principal développeur de PmWiki) et sponsorisée par Eric Forgeot. Grâce aux nombreux efforts de ce dernier, il existe maintenant plusieurs implémentations de la syntaxe Txt2tags en JavaScript, avec une démo parfaitement fonctionnelle des possibilités de rendu côté client en temps réel. Et Matthew Pickering a quant à lui écrit un reader Txt2tags pour Pandoc.
En face, Markdown est représenté par une armada d’implémentations dans tous les langages utilisés sur le web côté serveur, et aussi en JavaScript côté client pour des prévisualisations efficaces sans Ajax, mais seul Pandoc, qui n’est pas si facile à compiler sur toutes les plateformes, propose autre chose qu’un rendu en HTML.
Je vais bien sûr continuer à travailler sur le logiciel Txt2tags, mais une implémentation de la syntaxe Txt2tags dans un parser Docutils, pour toucher directement toute la communauté des développeurs Python qui documentent leurs projets, et pouvoir bénéficier ensuite du sublime Sphinx, est un projet qui me motive de plus en plus.
Enfin, je suis toujours un peu nostalgique devant ce screenshot, parce que c’est en le voyant, avec en haut à gauche le fichier avec les balises, et en bas à droite celui avec le résultat texte brut, que j’ai pris conscience que Txt2tags faisait bien ce que j’espérais, et que comme en plus il était en Python, ce serait probablement le logiciel auquel j’allais contribuer !

Pandoc

Pandoc is a command-line tool. There is no graphic user interface. 
Pandoc is a Haskell library for converting from one markup format to another, and a command-line tool that uses this library. It can read MarkdownCommonMarkPHP Markdown ExtraGitHub-Flavored MarkdownMultiMarkdown, and (subsets of) TextilereStructuredTextHTMLLaTeXMediaWiki markupTWiki markupHaddock markupOPMLEmacs Org modeDocBookMusetxt2tagsVimwikiEPUBODT, and Word docx; and it can write plain text, MarkdownCommonMarkPHP Markdown ExtraGitHub-Flavored MarkdownMultiMarkdownreStructuredTextXHTMLHTML5LaTeX (including beamer slide shows), ConTeXtRTFOPMLDocBookOpenDocumentODTWord docxGNU TexinfoMediaWiki markupDokuWiki markupZimWiki markupHaddock markupEPUB (v2 or v3), FictionBook2Textilegroff man, [groff ms], Emacs Org modeAsciiDocInDesign ICMLTEI SimpleMuse and SlidySlideousDZSlidesreveal.js or S5 HTML slide shows. It can also produce PDF output on systems where LaTeX, ConTeXt, pdfroff, or wkhtmltopdf is installed.
Pandoc's enhanced version of Markdown includes syntax for footnotestables, flexible ordered listsdefinition listsfenced code blockssuperscripts and subscriptsstrikeoutmetadata blocks, automatic tables of contents, embedded LaTeX mathcitations, and [Markdown inside HTML block elements][Extension: markdown_in_html_blocks]. (These enhancements, described further under Pandoc's Markdown, can be disabled using the markdown_strict input or output format.)
In contrast to most existing tools for converting Markdown to HTML, which use regex substitutions, pandoc has a modular design: it consists of a set of readers, which parse text in a given format and produce a native representation of the document, and a set of writers, which convert this native representation into a target format. Thus, adding an input or output format requires only adding a reader or writer.
Because pandoc's intermediate representation of a document is less expressive than many of the formats it converts between, one should not expect perfect conversions between every format and every other. Pandoc attempts to preserve the structural elements of a document, but not formatting details such as margin size. And some document elements, such as complex tables, may not fit into pandoc's simple document model. While conversions from pandoc's Markdown to all formats aspire to be perfect, conversions from formats more expressive than pandoc's Markdown can be expected to be lossy.
This document is for people who are unfamiliar with command line tools. Command-line experts can go straight to the User’s Guide or the pandoc man page:

Modules 

In contrast to most existing tools for converting Markdown to HTML, pandoc has a modular design: it consists of a set of readers, which parse text in a given format and produce a native representation of the document, and a set of writers, which convert this native representation into a target format. Thus, adding an input or output format requires only adding a reader or writer.

Ref.

Pandoc’s enhanced version of Markdown 

Pandoc’s enhanced version of Markdown includes syntax for footnotes, tables, flexible ordered lists, definition lists, fenced code blocks, superscripts and subscripts, strikeout, metadata blocks, automatic tables of contents, embedded LaTeX math, citations, and Markdown inside HTML block elements. (These enhancements, described further under Pandoc’s Markdown, can be disabled using the markdown_strict input or output format.)

Tricks

you have a long markdown file in GitHub and want to have a TOC, you can use 
pandoc -t markdown_github --toc -o example-with-toc.md example.md

Using Markdown Templates

Math in Pure Markdown