From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Randby Subject: Re: setting local variables Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:42:35 -0400 Message-ID: <08f7ca4a-a19e-8dcb-b877-d306dda5c5b4@gmail.com> References: <871sotiqld.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87r2wsly88.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <877eykbpho.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87wp5dmkm0.fsf@gmx.us> <87h8wh13tm.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87y3psp5ne.fsf@gmx.us> <87mv68159v.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87h8wgov62.fsf@gmx.us> <87fuc0asaq.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87y3pr7pn2.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <874lsfaho3.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87pob2opic.fsf@gmx.us> <87k21azncs.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87bmmm4kny.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58405) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dujxL-0001Yb-86 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:42:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dujxI-0007du-4q for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:42:43 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]:44307) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dujxH-0007Wg-W3 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:42:40 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id v36so5739836ioi.1 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:42:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Carsten Dominik , Eric Abrahamsen Cc: org-mode list On 09/20/2017 12:17 PM, Carsten Dominik wrote: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Eric Abrahamsen > wrote: > >> Nicolas Goaziou 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! >> >> >> >