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

[tftorrey@tftorrey.com (T.F. Torrey)]

Hello Jambunathan,

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> Torrey
>
>>>> One small problem, though: I see that if there is a TOC at the top and
>>>> then one included later using #+TOC, the exporter gives them both the
>>>> same id (<div id="table-of-contents">).  Duplicate ID's makes the XML
>>>> invalid.
>>>
>>> What do you suggest instead? id="table-of-contents-1" for the first
>>> #+TOC: keyword and so on?
>
> Why do you need two table of contents?

I don't, though some might.  As was explained earlier in this thread, if
toc: options are set in the OPTIONS line, and a #+TOC is specified
later, two tables of contents are generated, and they have the same ID.
It is a feature of the new exporter, but duplicate ID's are not valid in
XML.

It is common for technical manuals to have a top-level table of contents
at the front of the manual and a detailed table of contents later on.
For instance, the GNU project Info manuals have that structure.

>> This gives a significant advantage in that authors can link to the
>> various instances just by knowing their own usage.  For instance, if
>> they provided a top-level toc at the beginning of their book, and a
>> deeper-level toc later on, they could link to each separately by id by
>> knowing this plan.
>
> This seems like a valid use-case.  
>
> I would recommend that you just specify just the use-case and leave out
> the "how"s of implementation.
>
> Put your user hat and set aside the developer's hat.

What a strange, semi-insulting thing to say.

And misguided, too, as I was suggesting a design, not its
implementation.  As someone with all my own documents in Org and
extensive experience developing XSLT and lisp to process the XHTML
output of Org, I appreciate when the design of the HTML output is
logical and useful.

I would rather see a good design implemented in hacks than a poor design
implemented in beautiful code.

Regards,
Terry
-- 
T.F. Torrey