On Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:43 PM Scott Randby <srandby@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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:
> > I do object to removing unnumbered headers from the toc.


I believe this change was made to fix the case of mixed numbered and
unnumbered headings in the TOC.

Please see the other thread[1] where I suggest supporting the "case 3"
where we want TOC where all headings are numbered i.e. the case of num:nil.

 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.
>

Mine is the same use case and the num:nil case covers that.

 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
>

@Scott Please see that other thread[1]. I have this exact use case. And if
the case 3 discussed in that thread is supported all should be good.

[1]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2017-09/msg00497.html
-- 

Kaushal Modi