From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: Why does org-html.org refuse to export a table of contents when body-only is t? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:55:44 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4BCB4239.5050503@jboecker.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O6hWS-0004Zw-M2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:56:08 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40290 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O6hWN-0004XS-TR for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:56:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O6hW8-0000Ye-BJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:55:49 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f214.google.com ([209.85.219.214]:47663) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O6hW8-0000YU-4p for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:55:48 -0400 Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so4737600ewy.32 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BCB4239.5050503@jboecker.de> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_B=F6cker?= Cc: Org Mode On Apr 18, 2010, at 7:32 PM, Jan B=F6cker wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to add a table of contents to a HTML export with body-only =20= > set > to t (to feed into jekyll later), but org-html.el automatically =20 > disables > the TOC when body-only is given. > > I have used the attached one-line patch without any problems, the =20 > (still > XHTML strict compliant) result can be seen here: > > = http://www.jboecker.de/2010/04/14/general-reference-filing-with-org-mode.h= tml > > gitk tells me that the line I have changed was first introduced in > Release 4.75, so is this just a use case that was not thought of when > this was programmed, or is there a specific reason? The reason for this behavior is that the most frequent application for this seems to me to convert a small block to HTML, to paste it somewhere else. But I have no string reasons to keep it like this. Do we have more opinions on this issue? - Carsten