Re: [BUG] New exporter exports TOC twice

["Sebastien Vauban" <sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/iDocfnWg@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Carsten,

Carsten Dominik wrote:
> On 27.4.2013, at 10:52, Sebastien Vauban <sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/iDocfnWg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>> On 24.4.2013, at 13:50, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> Thorsten Jolitz <tjolitz-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> Exporting a Worg file with this header (#+TOC: headlines 2) 
>>>>> exports the TOC twice in HTML export and ASCII export. 
>>>> 
>>>> If you don't specify a toc item in the OPTIONS line, Org will use the
>>>> value of `org-export-with-toc', which is non-nil by default.
>>>> 
>>>> So, your example is equivalent to:
>>>> 
>>>> #+OPTIONS: toc:t
>>>> #+TOC: headline 2
>>>> 
>>>> Hence you get two tables of contents.
>>> 
>>> Hmm, I understand the reasoning here - but my feeling says that
>>> the presence of one or more #+TOC lines in a file should probably
>>> overrule both #+OPTIONS: toc: and the content of org-export-with-toc.
>>> So in that case, your would then only get one TOC, at the
>>> location of that line.
>>> 
>>> What do you think?  Are there good reasons for not doing it
>>> as I propose?
>> 
>> Maybe what I'll say is stupid, but, in LaTeX, there's the minitoc package for
>> having a big TOC at the beginning of the document (default) + TOC per chapter,
>> which can be limited to less (or more) sublevels.
>> 
>> Maybe allowing to insert extra TOC here and there would allow one to make
>> something like that available to other backends?  Though, as of today, I don't
>> think the TOC is limitable per org-level-1 headline...
>
> I am not saying multiple tocs should not be allowed.  I am all for that.
> However, I think that by inserting a #+TOC line, the user indicates
> desire for local control.  Therefore, org-export-with-toc should be ignored,
> and, by extension, also #+OPTIONS: toc (because this is really a local way
> to set org-export-with-toc).

OK, that's another point of view. I clearly have no objection for that
behavior.

Best regards,
  Seb

-- 
Sebastien Vauban