Different kinds of annotations with colours

Hi !

I was thinking that it would be really nice to have different kinds of annotations with different coulours, related to different kinds of data:-)

This could be a solution for managing alternative texts in one single document.

Let’s use an example :

I started to use the annotations in Scrivener for LaTeX commands, and it works quite nicely !

I can thus compile both with or without LaTeX commands (checking/uncheckind the “compile with annotations” button), e.g. for wisiwyg people or LaTeX users.

But I stambled upon a small limitation (not a big deal, but I’d still like to have a better solution) : sometimes, I would need an alternative system.

For example : inserting the “µ” character is easy in text (just hit the “µ” key). So when compiling in rtf it ends up as “µ”.

But if I want to compile for LaTeX, I end up with “$\mu$ µ” as I entered the LaTeX command for getting the “µ” character. So I need to delete the other “µ” manually after the compilation.

In this case, I could really use two different annotations :

  • Red annotations for LaTeX commands
  • Green annotations for text alternatives

This way I could compile with red annotations but without green annotations, or the other way arround.

Yes! That is definitely the idea we’re pushing toward (and I would say if you’re needing stuff like this, we’ve got some even better implementations coming along that will make it so you can go back to using annotations for their intended purpose eventually). Here is a screenshot from the Mac version (and an excerpt from the user manual, which makes use of this technique quite heavily to produce both manuals from one project):

Not a comment on annotation colors, but about LaTeX and extended characters:

The unicode-math package will allow you to write $ μ $ and have it render exactly the same way as $ \mu $. Ditto with $ ⊗ $ for $ \otimes $, $ ↦ $ for $ \mapsto $, etc. LaTeX character commands are obsolescent in the sense that they were developed before the Unicode standard. The bulk of backslashed nonsense can be replaced with Unicode literals, which is more compact and far more readable.

Only caveat: pdflatex (which is also obsolescent) does not support unicode-math, so you need to use xelatex or lualatex.

People should also stop using the $…$ and $$…$$ delimiters and use (…) and […] instead, but that’s another discussion.

Uuhh, NICE !! I can’t wait to try that !

Thanks for the tip Liz :wink:

I’ve been using XeLaTeX lately and am very glad to have made the switch. It’s much nicer to be working in the year 2017 instead of 1989.

I did think of one other thing that could help you out right now (until we have the new goodies for you): check out pg. 265, 6 in the user manual PDF. You can make your exclusion syntax by wrapping LaTeX code in markers that would be stripped out when adding a replacement to do so (which could be saved into a compile preset). It won’t look as pretty as the annotations, but you get a non-binary result.