On Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:43 PM Scott Randby <sran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 09/20/2017 12:17 PM, Carsten Dominik wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Eric Abrahamsen <e...@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
