A couple of problems here. First, my keyboard shortcuts were initially shared for in-line footnotes and the inspector footnotes, making the keyboard shortcut inoperable. I deleted the inspector footnote shortcut, but then figured out how to set the shortcut to the default Shift+F5. That’s not too big a deal, but there’s another problem.
Both in-line footnotes and in-line annotations with the keyboard shortcuts now work differently. If I’ve turned on in-line footnote or annotate with the shortcut, type, finish the footnote/annotation, and then hit the shortcut again to end the footnote/annotation, everything that I had written previously turns from footnote/annotation to normal text. Scrivener used to not do this. And it seems that the old way it worked is how it’s supposed to. It is, certainly, how I prefer it to work.
Okay, I see now that this came up here:
And very helpful advice! I might not have found the converting option.
Yeah, this definitely a bug. We do not want it to work the way it is currently working as you can no longer write continuously, but have to backtrack, select and apply, then return the cursor to where you were.
I think that I found another bug while trying to do your workaround. I often have several paragraphs of inline annotations. I converted one scrivening’s inline annotations to inspector comments. But this produced inspector comments only for the first paragraph of any back-to-back paragraphs of inline annotations. That means that not all the inline annotations get converted! And I tried an export of just this file: indeed, what shows up when I open the RTF in MS Word are the first paragraph of comments. So that seems to be genuine data loss!
This makes me very wary of messing with footnotes or annotations of either sort! I suppose I’ll probably stick with inline footnotes & annotations, despite the aforementioned bug.
So I did some more testing, but now am a bit confused. I made a duplicate of the scrivening, so that I could have one version with in-line annotations and one with inspector comments. I then went to the project folder in Windows Explorer and found the RTF files for each.
The RTF with in-line annotations has them there in the text when I open the file with MS Word. The annotations are indicated by Scrivener’s markup language, e.g.
But when I open the duplicate RTF with inspector comments, I don’t see these anywhere in the RTF in MS Word. How exactly are inspector comments stored? Maybe there isn’t data loss, since the conversion to inspector comments stores data that doesn’t appear in Scrivener or MS Word. But then that raises another issue: how would I get this data out of there?
Again, all this makes me wary of using inspector comments.
Whoops, thanks for the catch! The problem here is the way that inline notation currently works, which limits a note to a single paragraph, meaning that a multi-paragraph note is actually multiple inline notations. When converting to inspector notes, rather than being merged into a single note as should happen, they’re essentially converted as separate notes, but without any main text to latch on to, the later ones get cut. I’m making sure this is on the fix-list.
The good news as far as the inline note bug goes is that this problem is just in the conversion from inline notes to inspector note and not the other way around, so if you’re using inspector notes temporarily and converting to inline later, it won’t affect you.
Thanks for the quick update and feedback! Could you also explain where exactly the data for inspector comments is stored, if not in the associated RTF files?
Ah sorry, missed that. It’s in the associated .links file presently, although we’ll later be updating this to use a different custom format, more like hyperlinks, within the RTF file itself.
Thanks for the quick replies and helpful information!
I see that this got a Hotfix. Both in-line footnotes and in-line annotations are now back to normal. Good work guys!
I still don’t feel comfortable yet using the inspector comments and footnotes, due to the other issues. But I can see how they’d be handy. But I can be patient there.
In any case, thanks!
That choice is mainly down to preference anyway. There are some good reasons for using one or the other (I tried to list as many as I could think of in the introduction to the features in the manual), but ultimate it comes down to what is comfortable. I still prefer inline notes for most of the stuff I do, but having the choice is nice, especially for really long notes.
I didn’t realize the manual had been updated. I’ll check it out! It was helpful when I read it last a year or so ago.