On 09/20/2017 12:17 PM, Carsten Dominik wrote: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> > wrote: > >> Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: >> >> >> [...] >> >>> So, any objection to have all major back-ends ignoring unnumbered trees >>> from TOC, and make that an Org specificity? >> > > > Hi Nicolas, > > OK, now I have read this thread. > > I do object to removing unnumbered headers from the toc. It breaks > documented and used behaviour and aI see no pressing reason to change it. I > find, for compact documents, it works extremely well to have a toc that has > no numbers - in fact, in many cases I find numbered tocs even annoying. In > particular, it works really well in websites, where I use it constantly. > > I am sorry that I did not see this earlier - but I really think this change > should be reverted. If there is a desire to have sections that are not put > into the toc, it should be separated from the num: and toc: switches and > depend, for example on properties instead. > > The fact that in LaTeX "unnumbered" is linked to the question if something > is in the toc is some kind of mistake, this behaviour is very specific to > LaTeX-like systems (including TeXInfo), but it is not a very logical system > IMO. > > Carsten
I have to agree with Carsten. I use unnumbered table of contents all the time in web pages. Almost all of my Org files that generate web pages have the following: #+options: num:nil toc:t The change should be reverted. I wish I had paid attention to this thread. I thought it was about something else. Scott Randby > > >> >> Sounds good! >> >> >> >
