Re: [O] [new exporter] [html] Tables of Contents

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

address@hidden (T.F. Torrey) writes:

> The new exporter currently puts the generated Table of Contents at the
> beginning of the exported document in addition to the location of 
> "#+TOC: headlines".  I don't think it should insert it at the beginning
> when it is called later.

I think it should. There's no reason for it to go against user's will,
is there?

> However, I think the new exporter introduces disparities in the output
> options that give us a chance to do something better.
>
> In the new exporter, the type of generated Table of Contents depends on
> two different configurations:
>
> 1. In the #+OPTIONS line, the toc: option determines whether to include
> a TOC at the beginning, and how many levels /any/ TOC's should have.
>
> 2. The keyword #+TOC: can also be used to insert a generated TOC at a
> specific location in the document.  This keyword allows options of
> headlines, images, and listings, but it has no provision for levels.

Of course it has:

  #+TOC: headlines 2

It is documented in the manual.

> Currently, using the OPTION toc:nil suppresses a default TOC.  Later on,
> the #+TOC keyword is still recognized and acted upon, which I think is
> the correct behavior, but then it includes all levels in the generated
> TOC, because there no way to tell it otherwise.

See above.

> IMHO, the #+OPTIONS line toc: option is unnecessary.

If you remove it, you have no way to insert a table of contents in the
header anymore. It may be important for some back-ends.

> However, if used, it should only provide the document default options
> for generated TOC's.

> Instead, the #+TOC keyword should be changed to support the plist
> structure that has been adopted elsewhere.  Thus, an example might be:
>
> #+TOC: :type headlines :levels 2

Indeed. I have to change this. But I need to modify the parser for such
attributes first.

> Other options might be included, too, such as the option to suppress
> dates or TODO states as Carsten requested, or perhaps even user-supplied
> options, something like this:
>
> #+TOC: :type headlines :levels 2 :dates nil :todo nil :title nil
>        :extra-function my-custom-toc-headline-processor
>
> (In this example, the :title property means the "Table of Contents" at
> the top of the TOC, not the title of the headline.)

Interesting. But that's some additional work for back-end developers.

> I don't know how the current options (or these I've proposed) could be
> designated in the OPTIONS line.

Some defcustom could be used. But we're not there yet.

> If we dropped support for the toc: option in the OPTIONS line, people
> would have to insert the #+TOC: keyword with its options where they
> wanted it. Would that be so bad?

Yes, see above.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou