Hi,
One of the most moaned-about features in Scrivener is the footnotes (and annotations, for that matter). Before continuing, I hasten to add that Scrivener will never be Word, Nisus or Mellel, and will never do any true page layout (well, never say never, but it’s not in my scope for the foreseeable future), so don’t expect WYSIWIG footnotes or annotations. However, for 1.04, I propose the following, but would like some feedback:
(NOTE: This proposal has been updated here: literatureandlatte.com/forum … 1868#11868 - please read the new proposal before commenting.)
-
I will rename annotations to “comments” or “inline comments”, which may be less misleading. Technically, annotations can be inline, but most people seem to associate annotations with marginal or linked notes, so I think “comments” may better represent to such people what this feature does. The way annotations (or comments) work, however, will not change - they will remain inline. I know not everybody likes that, but hey, you don’t have to use them. Many programs have nothing in the way of comments at all.
-
Footnotes: currently, the only difference between footnotes and annotations (aside from the way they are coloured) is how they are exported. A lot of users bemoan the fact that the footnotes are inline, and I think they have a better case than that against annotations. However, Scrivener cannot do “true” footnotes until the export stage. So the question is, what would a better system look like? Something that is somewhere inbetween the current system and “true” footnotes, presumably. Well, I am thinking of implementing something along the lines of how MultiMarkdown footnotes work. This is how it might look:
Essentially, you would select “Insert Footnote”. This would insert a unique number between square brackets at the insertion point, leap to the end of the text and insert the same number between square brackets with the cursor after it waiting for you to type the footnote. After you finish typing, you would hit another key-combo to return the insertion point to the place of the footnote marker.
So far, this sounds pretty much like any footnote system anywhere aside from the squared brackets. Except that you would be able to continue typing after the footnotes if you wanted - that is, they wouldn’t have to appear at the end of your document in Scrivener. Also, if you had the following text:
[code]First sentence.[1] Second sentence.[2] Third sentence.[3]
[1] First footnote.
[2] Second footnote.
[3] Third footnote.[/code]
And then you edited it, by cutting and pasting, so that it looked like this:
[code]First sentence.[1] Third sentence.[3] Second sentence.[2]
[1] First footnote.
[2] Second footnote.
[3] Third footnote.[/code]
The numbering system would not be updated inside Scrivener. This is because the numbers in the brackets are just unique markers, and not real footnote markers. Upon export, this text would become:
[code]First sentence.1 Third sentence.2 Second sentence.3
1 First footnote.
2 Third footnote.
3 Second footnote.[/code]
The only implementation issue I see so far is the whitespace that surrounds these footnotes - how to know which whitespace should be retained and which should not.
So… Thoughts and suggestions much appreciated. Please do bear in mind that resources are limited and that Scrivener cannot and will not do “real” footnotes, so please don’t ask. What I am asking for is how you would like to see a better pre-export footnote system to evolve, within certain technical boundaries.
Thanks and all the best,
Keith