Re: setting local variables

[Scott Randby <srandby@gmail.com>]

On 09/20/2017 12:17 PM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> Nicolas Goaziou <mail@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!
>>
>>
>>
>