Brilliant. Worked perfectly.

Peter

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 16:32, Bob Stayton <b...@sagehill.net> wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
> This is what I would try (I haven't tested it, so let me know if it
> doesn't work).
>
> In fo/autotoc.xsl, elements for a TOC are selected as a set of $nodes and
> then those nodes are processed in mode="toc".   In those templates, each
> line in the toc is generated by calling the template named "toc.line".
> This template handles an article:
>
> <xsl:template match="preface|chapter|appendix|article" mode="toc">
>
> You can create a custom template that matches on only "article" that
> removes the call to "toc.line" and processes the top-level sections in a
> for-each loop:
>
> <xsl:for-each select="d:section">
>    <xsl:call-template name="toc.line">
>       <xsl:with-param name="toc-context" select="$toc-context"/>
>   </xsl:call-template>
> </xsl:for-each>
>
> The "toc.line" template does not process any subsections.
>
> Bob staytonb...@sagehill.net
>
> On 4/1/2020 2:05 AM, Peter Fleck wrote:
>
> Yes, sorry FO, I know I can use a manual.toc for HTML.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 23:27, Bob Stayton <b...@sagehill.net> wrote:
>
>> You didn't mention whether this was for FO or HTML type of output.
>>
>> Bob staytonb...@sagehill.net
>>
>> On 3/31/2020 2:08 PM, Peter Fleck wrote:
>>
>> I have an abnormal use case.
>>
>> The source file is a book with many articles, however the TOC is to be
>> first level sections of each article and not the article title itself.
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> <article>
>> <info><title></info>                                     -- not included
>> <section><info><title></info></section>     -- included
>> <section><info><title></info></section>     -- included
>> ...
>> </article>
>> <article>
>> <info><title></info>                                     -- not included
>> <section><info><title></info></section>     -- included
>> <section><info><title></info></section>     -- included
>> ...
>> </article>
>>
>> Any pointers would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>

Reply via email to