The different parts I see are

(1) Does the concept of "encounters" is significant? How much link does exist between a single encounter and the overhaul campaign.

A CaS proponent will usually express its distaste for out-of-the-encounters effects having significant impact on the encounter (like extensive preparation), or in-the-encounter effects having a significant impact outside of it (like permanent injuries). All of those effects are disturbances that ruin the fun of the fight. In its more radical case, a CaS proponent will push for taking a long rest between each fight, as the concept of attrition war is not something he/she enjoys participating to.
A CaS DM will try to balance encounters so that every fight is interesting by itself, even if that mean cancelling the bonus/penalties from previous fight. (Have a rough day? Let's nerf the enemies. You rolled over the previous encounter? Let's buff the enemies.)
CaS does not mean that every fight is evenly matched. But it means that when building a non-level-appropriate fight as per CR, there is a backed-in solution which is level appropriate (like running away), and explicitly presented to the players so that they don't blindly go into the fight.

For a CaW proponent, the fights are a mean, not a goal. Cancelling the bonus from victories by making later fight harder would feel like robbing them from the entire point of winning a fight, and disregarding the effects of preparation as removing their agency to outsmart the enemies.
A CaW DM will expect the players to try to manipulate the encounters they take part in, and will punish lack of anticipation skills from the players but reward unorthodox approaches at solving problems.

CaS players with a CaW DM will result in frequents TPK, or at least frequent moments when the players complain about the DM being unfair or adversarial. CaW players with a CaS DM will result in a feeling of lack of agency / railroading, or the DM growing more and more frustrated than his fight doesn't go as planned and enjoying less and less being a DM (depending on how much the DM tries to force CaS onto the players).

(2) How many conventions the table has, aka how much "good sportsmanship" is expected. E.g do monsters finish of dying PCs?

This question is quite different from CaS vs CaW, but often gets lumped into it. It is totally possible to play CaS with very few conventions other than respecting the limits of the combat encounters. And it is totally possible to play CaW where the DM applies a very strict "you can only die from your own mistakes" or "player equipment is sacred and cannot be lost/stolen".

(3) A question of expected gameplay.

It's not unusual for players to come with expectation like "I have this cool power I want to use". Assuming quick level up (often the case with milestone level up) or rare gaming sessions (so the player rediscover their character each time), the players have an expected gameplay for their character, and will feel frustrated if the challenges in front cannot be solved with their expected gameplay.

At the contrary, if that's the 10th fight of the (real life) week you're doing with the same character and not significant changes of powers available to your character, you will appreciate having a fight that cannot be summed up by "I use the standard tactics".

PS:
I am firmly CaS. I don't like to anticipate. I usually follow the path (or the rails) to discover what is happening and react to it, and find it very tiring to have to actually take initiatives. I have a very weird relationship with loots, as while I do enjoy loot, there are a lot of kind of loots that I actually find more tiring than enjoying. (In particular, I don't like at all the fact that wizards loot their spells).