Hello Jambunathan, Jambunathan K <kjambunat...@gmail.com> writes:
> Torrey > >>>> One small problem, though: I see that if there is a TOC at the top and >>>> then one included later using #+TOC, the exporter gives them both the >>>> same id (<div id="table-of-contents">). Duplicate ID's makes the XML >>>> invalid. >>> >>> What do you suggest instead? id="table-of-contents-1" for the first >>> #+TOC: keyword and so on? > > Why do you need two table of contents? I don't, though some might. As was explained earlier in this thread, if toc: options are set in the OPTIONS line, and a #+TOC is specified later, two tables of contents are generated, and they have the same ID. It is a feature of the new exporter, but duplicate ID's are not valid in XML. It is common for technical manuals to have a top-level table of contents at the front of the manual and a detailed table of contents later on. For instance, the GNU project Info manuals have that structure. >> This gives a significant advantage in that authors can link to the >> various instances just by knowing their own usage. For instance, if >> they provided a top-level toc at the beginning of their book, and a >> deeper-level toc later on, they could link to each separately by id by >> knowing this plan. > > This seems like a valid use-case. > > I would recommend that you just specify just the use-case and leave out > the "how"s of implementation. > > Put your user hat and set aside the developer's hat. What a strange, semi-insulting thing to say. And misguided, too, as I was suggesting a design, not its implementation. As someone with all my own documents in Org and extensive experience developing XSLT and lisp to process the XHTML output of Org, I appreciate when the design of the HTML output is logical and useful. I would rather see a good design implemented in hacks than a poor design implemented in beautiful code. Regards, Terry -- T.F. Torrey
