compile a document and its subs ...

I have a Draft with several articles in it. One of those articles has sub-articles. (I have tried having the upper document be a folder or be a document here.)

I want to compile only that document, not everything in the Draft.

If the upper-level guy is a Folder, then swiping on it gives More / Compile, which compiles but does not include the text that’s in the document side of the Folder. If it is a document, then the More / Compile is not there at all.

The Compile button in the Binder compiles everything. The compile button under the document compiles everything.

How can I compile this document, including its text and the text of the subs?

Thanks!

In this same document, when I compile the whole draft, plain text, markdown switches both set, the SECOND document under DRAFT shows up with its title at level one:

Second Document

But the first one’s title does not show up that way. What’s up with that, please?

ARRGH! To get the first document to compile correctly with # First Document at the top, I had to first switch compile to PDF, then TURN OFF the first document is title page switch, then switch back to Plain Text and proceed.

If that switch is going to affect Plain Text mode, I respectfully suggest it should show up in the Plain Text compile options.

The Compile Current Group Only option should appear in compile settings when called from within a container (including file group) of the Draft, or when using the swipe+more method. I don’t believe it is possible to compile from a container that includes both its title and its text. Folders remove the text and file groups are incapable of expressing themselves with titles in the first place.

Yeah, that should be fixed, I’ve added it to the list.

I remain confused. How does one organize a document of nested chapters and subtopics if the containers can’t have both text and titles? I’m imagining something like this:

How does one best organize and compile such a thing … especially if it is in a DRAFT containing several such multi-part articles?

Thanks!

If I was using purely iOS for everything, I probably wouldn’t attempt a structure like that, it does not appear to be built for it (I might be missing something). The layout you’re describing works fine on a Mac or PC though, so if the idea is to use the Mac for compiling and iOS for quick proof output, then the easiest solution would probably be to use a file container so that you get the text content and type the title of the container into the text area with the appropriate hashmarks.

Thanks Amber,

If I keep a single top-level document and then the subs, it’s nearly good, and yes, I can always use the more powerful Mac stuff for the compile.

I’m used to writing in flat markdown files, doing my own # and ## and such. I’m trying to get some of the broader writing advantages of Scrivener, especially for the iPad, which I’m trying to make my day by day carrying-around machine. I’ve written my most recent book without Scrivener, because I had to use the Pragmatic Programmers system, though I had started it in Scrivener. So now, with the iPad as my main daily workhorse, I’m focused there, but surely will use the Mac at some point.

I’m finding Scrivener to be fascinating but odd. On the one hand, it’s a tool for organizing and writing, and the facilities for that are great, even on the iPad. I think the cork board will be a key component for me, and possibly, for some things, the ability to move things around and have sub-topics. (The point with the sub-topics is that, compiled right, they’ll automagically get the right number of ## on the headings, and I can write with a bit less attention to markdown. That seems to me to be potentially powerful – it’s too soon to know.)

On the other hand, Scrivener has all this tantalyzing pretty formatting in it. I guess that’s just there to give me a decent-looking screen to type into but to my poor mind it invites the old Microsoft Word sin of formatting when one should be writing.

So I’m trying to learn, and part of that is understanding enough of what I can and can’t do to pick the most powerful work patterns that fit my way of writing – or that influence it in a better way owing to Scrivener’s capabilities.

Thanks again,

From my understanding, a lot of that is there because a) no two writers agree about what the appropriately formatted screen looks like, b) Scrivener grew from the capabilities of the Apple rich text facilities, and rich text implies formatting, and c) sometimes you can drag in material into different documents from different sources that have wildly different formatting, but the Compiler is where you smoosh it all out to a single consistent look and feel.

Use the formatting bits you need to make your workflow sing. Ignore the rest. Or, go wild with it and let Compile sort it out. :slight_smile:

Good advice, Devin. I’m trying to keep focused on good enough on the eyes when typing, and decent markdown on output. I’m pretty sure that’ll get me anywhere I need to go. I fell into the trap of getting Editorial, based on something I read here, but I’m trying to ignore it. :slight_smile:

Thanks,

I feel you. My current struggle is two-fold:

  1. get stories plotted out of the corners I’ve pantsed them into
  2. get butt in seat to write

There are two things Scrivener does with Markdown that I find useful enough to avoid using the pure syntax for: heading levels and footnotes. Having the outline structure turned into visible document structure without having to worry about the number of hashes is nice. Footnotes are just a lot of micromanagement (although the newer techniques in MultiMarkdown really help, such as inline footnotes) that can avoided with the compiler.

Realistically I use a bit of a mix. I tend to outline in a more detailed fashion than the output structure will require (e.g. five sections under one visible heading), or sometimes I deliberately want a level two header where the outline item itself is level three, that sort of stuff. The Compile As-Is flag can be useful for scenarios such as these. With footnotes, sometimes I want to do things that I find awkward with Scrivener’s footnotes. That’s really the nice thing about a system that can generate these things, but doesn’t get messed up if you do a little of your own as well.

My advice would be to write to the Mac’s capabilities and consider the iOS compiler for what it is, a simple proofer output. That is an valuable function on the go, but you’re going to be shackling your capabilities quite a bit if you tailor your work to what the iOS compiler is capable of.

Yeah that might be a background thing. I went from typewriters to LaTeX in Vim to Ulysses to Scrivener. I did use LyX for a little while, but I’m not sure if you can really call that a rich text editor. For me I’ve found the concept of writing plain-text in a rich text environment to be very interesting. You can do stuff with it that is ordinarily difficult, like highlighting a couple of lines for later review, or make unimportant text tiny. All of those tools are there like a paintbrush, and they do absolutely nothing when I compile. So I like that kind of freedom. I don’t often use it, but it’s there if I want to, and that’s something I don’t get a from text editor.

By and large though I just ignore that whole aspect of the software, and it’s perfectly fine without it. The organisation and navigation control is simply unparalleled in my experience.

yes, thanks, that sounds like roughly where i’m headed. :slight_smile: