sigil_not_in_toc

[GMcG]

<h4 class="sigil_not_in_toc">

I get this entry for any headline in the html code.
What does it mean and where do I have to edit something?
I have checked stylesheet.css and path and anything seems to be ok.
Thank you.

George

[theducks]

Originally Posted by GMcG

<h4 class="sigil_not_in_toc">

I get this entry for any headline in the html code.
What does it mean and where do I have to edit something?
I have checked stylesheet.css and path and anything seems to be ok.
Thank you.

George

Do you want the rest of the tag pair (Text) to be used in the TOC?

You get that Flag when you remove a tick in the TOC editor.

If this is done in error, either remove the Red or use remove the tick at the bottom of the TOC editor and ADD a tick next to the item TO INCLUDE in the TOC.

[exaltedwombat]

Originally Posted by GMcG

<h4 class="sigil_not_in_toc">

I get this entry for any headline in the html code.
What does it mean and where do I have to edit something?
I have checked stylesheet.css and path and anything seems to be ok.
Thank you.

George

It means that you've used a Header style, but chosen not to include that entry (or that header type) in the Table of Contents. It does you no harm. Leave it alone.

[Nobble]

Specifically, if you've created a TOC using the automated tool, (having deselected some items it finds in the text that are headers but not for the contents list), this is how that shows up in the text.

if you run the ToC generator again, it uses those "..not_in_toc" class tags to make sure it won't show those headings by default. You can force it to show them in the list, or re-include them in the ToC if you want, by unticking the 'Show TOC items only' tickbox - bottom left of the list window, then fiddling with the tickboxes against each item in the list.

edit: and it does seem to show up at the end of the main stylesheet.css, at least in the current version.

[GMcG]

Thank you all, this was really helpful!
I had removed a lot of headlines (about 140 of 160) when generating the automatic TOC.
So this was the reason.

George

[mrmikel]

This is useful for those of us that use material formatted elsewhere using headers for large type especially on the title page. Untick those, since they don't belong in the table of contents, but who wants to bother reformatting the whole thing just to avoid using them, especially if they look nice.

[Turtle91]

I didn't like seeing those all the time either. I ended up not using Header tags in my document unless I wanted them to show up in the TOC.

instead of <h5>...</h5>
I would use <p class="....">...</p>

IMO it keeps the document cleaner.

[GMcG]

I followed the advice of Dion and reduced the number of <h4> and other <h> headers to 15 by replacing them by <p> tags like <p class="4">...</p> with p.4 {....}.
But then I made the strange experience, that the browser didn't read any <p> style with number. I had to make it like
<h2> ---> p.2 ---> p.b
<h3> ---> p.3 ---> p.c
<h4> ---> p.4 ---> p.d
and so on.
The only tag with number that's left now is <h4>.
Now It worked. Apparently there was a conflict somewhere, but I didn't find it. And when the FlightCrew said: 'No problem found', I left it like that and the result looks fine. But I would like to know what was wrong.
Any suggestions?

George

[mrmikel]

A class name can't begin with a number which is why it gave an error.

Numbers can't be the first character in id either.

Good going getting rid of all the extra headings.

I think is part of the point some people have made that some tags are for structure, and others for appearance.

[theducks]

A Long time ago...
People used to use H tags for different sized fonts, not for just 'headings'.

Since they really dont matter, and the really don't add significantly to the overall file size... Why is this being sweated? 99.99% of the book's readers will never even know that is there.

Personally, I dislike the mix of style definitions: CSS, On page (in the <Style>, and in line (style=) a whole lot more.

[GMcG]

@mrmikel
Thank you for making things clearer.
I had copied those <p> styles from a book about HTML formatting and didn't find out what I had made wrong.

George