Footnote Format; Known Problems?

When I add a footnote to an element of a bulleted or numbered list, and then compile the resulting text, the footnote comes out as a list item of the same type. A document with lots of footnotes then requires a lot of editing. As a result I was forced to abandon using Scrivener for that document. :cry:

Side Issue

There is still no reasonable way to find out what the “known problems” are. I don’t want to waste your time with duplicate reports. Searching through the forums has proved to be frustrating, time consuming, as well as unproductive, in many cases.


This is a known bug, but it doesn’t happen for all formats so you can use that as a current workaround. Try compiling to RTF and then opening in another program (Word, OpenOffice, etc.) to resave to a different format if you need it.

Don’t worry about duplicating a report. I understand that searching the forums can get a bit frustrating–the search options aren’t the greatest, and I’ve not been able to maintain a good list of bugs here lately for which I apologize. Lee is looking into possible bug tracking options for the future, once 1.0 is out, but at the moment it wouldn’t necessarily save Lee & co. a lot of work as there’s already an internal system in place and although I know it could be very nice for the more tech-inclined users to report and follow bugs, tracking sites are often rather huge intimidating beasts for the general populace. :wink: Plus it’s another giant database to maintain and would require yet another login. So while some of that can be got around, and we might get around it down the road to implement something like that (only hopefully a bit cleaner), at the moment we’re all a bit swamped.

I appreciate the pressure, and I understand the tradeoffs, so no problem there.

But, alas, the RTF compile produces even worse output. Right off the bat, the bullet list reverts to a simple unordered list [in Word the bullets are there.]. Yes, that’s easy enough to take care of, and I have no problems with editing the output of a compile. But some of the problems with the footnotes are because, I think, there are links embedded in some of them. Whenever that happens, the result in the RTF file is that the footnote is split into three footnotes: before the link, the link, and after the link. It’s possible to edit these as well, but it’s not easy, as footnotes don’t combine other than by cutting and pasting. To change something in the original and have to go through all that cut and paste… that’s when things get dicey.

Here’s an example. A screenshot of Scrivener:

Here’s what the RTF file looks like opened in Libre Office:

The same thing happens when I open the RTF file in Word 2008. Anything non-link will split the footnotes. For instance, when the footnote consists of only a link and a period, the link and period come out as separate footnotes.