Importing and hyperlinks

I couldn’t find any topics on this subject, which surprises me because it’s making me nuts.

I use Scrivener for law school and student practice, and generally it works great. I end up importing a lot of Word documents that have links, which are stripped out and inserted into main text. This makes the imported documents unreadable (see example below). I know I didn’t have this problem with the 1.x versions, and I would love to have it again, since it makes the import feature worthless to me.

How can I get Scrivener to not put hyperlinks into main text? Importing them is OK, since I might need one at some point, but they should be imported as non-inline footnotes or something else that puts them out of the way, or not imported at all.

Example follows, with and then without main-text URIs:

John Locke’s view, once described as “the standard bourgeois theory,”’ HYPERLINK “http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?docsample=False&sv=Split&service=Find&scxt=WL&rlti=1&cxt=DC&fcl=False&n=1&fn=_top&vr=2.0&rlt=CLID_FQRLT524219101&rp=%2FFind%2Fdefault.wl&cite=52+u+chi+l+rev+73&cnt=DOC&rs=WLW7.11&ss=CNT” \l “FNF1101386450#FNF1101386450” [FN1] is probably the one most familiar to American students. Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing, establishes ownership of it. HYPERLINK “http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?docsample=False&sv=Split&service=Find&scxt=WL&rlti=1&cxt=DC&fcl=False&n=1&fn=_top&vr=2.0&rlt=CLID_FQRLT524219101&rp=%2FFind%2Fdefault.wl&cite=52+u+chi+l+rev+73&cnt=DOC&rs=WLW7.11&ss=CNT” \l “FNF2101386450#FNF2101386450” [FN2] This labor theory is appealing because it appears to rest on “desert,”’ HYPERLINK “http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?docsample=False&sv=Split&service=Find&scxt=WL&rlti=1&cxt=DC&fcl=False&n=1&fn=_top&vr=2.0&rlt=CLID_FQRLT524219101&rp=%2FFind%2Fdefault.wl&cite=52+u+chi+l+rev+73&cnt=DOC&rs=WLW7.11&ss=CNT” \l “FNF3101386450#FNF3101386450” [FN3] but it has some problems. First, without a prior theory of ownership, it is not self-evident that one owns even the labor that is mixed with something else. HYPERLINK “http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?docsample=False&sv=Split&service=Find&scxt=WL&rlti=1&cxt=DC&fcl=False&n=1&fn=_top&vr=2.0&rlt=CLID_FQRLT524219101&rp=%2FFind%2Fdefault.wl&cite=52+u+chi+l+rev+73&cnt=DOC&rs=WLW7.11&ss=CNT” \l “FNF4101386450#FNF4101386450” [FN4] Second, even if one does own the labor that one performs, the labor theory provides no guidance in determining the scope of the right that *74 one establishes by mixing one’s labor with something else. Robert Nozick illustrates this problem with a clever hypothetical. Suppose I pour a can of tomato juice into the ocean: do I now own the seas? HYPERLINK “http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?docsample=False&sv=Split&service=Find&scxt=WL&rlti=1&cxt=DC&fcl=False&n=1&fn=_top&vr=2.0&rlt=CLID_FQRLT524219101&rp=%2FFind%2Fdefault.wl&cite=52+u+chi+l+rev+73&cnt=DOC&rs=WLW7.11&ss=CNT” \l “FNF5101386450#FNF5101386450” [FN5]

John Locke’s view, once described as “the standard bourgeois theory,”’ [FN1] is probably the one most familiar to American students. Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing, establishes ownership of it. [FN2] This labor theory is appealing because it appears to rest on “desert,”’ [FN3] but it has some problems. First, without a prior theory of ownership, it is not self-evident that one owns even the labor that is mixed with something else. [FN4] Second, even if one does own the labor that one performs, the labor theory provides no guidance in determining the scope of the right that *74 one establishes by mixing one’s labor with something else. Robert Nozick illustrates this problem with a clever hypothetical. Suppose I pour a can of tomato juice into the ocean: do I now own the seas? [FN5]

Nothing has changed in this regard since Scrivener 1.x. Do your Word files have file extensions? If not, they could get imported as plain text, which will result in you seeing all the gobbledegook markup contained in the files.

Also, are these RTF, DOC or DOCX files? And what happens if you open the in TextEdit.

The reason you haven’t found this mentioned in the forums is because it doesn’t normally happen. :slight_smile:

They are .doc files, with the extension. Drag-and-dropping from Mail, saving to my Desktop and dragging-and-dropping, and using File -> Import all produce the same result.

TextEdit adds the gobbledegook, but if I open the files in Word what I get looks like the second example (i.e., no markup, just the links as links). The one common thread is that all of the links are in documents exported from a legal database. I’m guessing Westlaw. This means (I assume) that start life in some sort of markup language and are exported through a filter, then e-mailed that way or parts of them are copied and pasted into the .doc files.

I have probably imported documents exported from these databases before and not had this problem. I can’t be sure because I usually export PDFs, but the likelihood of someone else e-mailing me stuff like this in the past is over 80%.

I’m glad to hear it doesn’t normally happen — hopefully there’s a way make it stop.

If you’re seeing this in TextEdit too then that makes sense. Scrivener uses the standard OS X .doc importer, which TextEdit uses too. It sounds as though OS X’s standard .doc importer doesn’t recognise these links properly (it does recognise standard hyperlinks, though). This will have been the same in 1.x, because that too used the standard importer. Unfortunately there’s nothing I can do if it’s happening in TextEdit too, short of writing my own .doc importer (which would take months!).

Try saving them out from Word as RTF documents and see if they open fine in TextEdit and Scrivener.

All the best,
Keith

Saving out to RTF from Word works — importing after that doesn’t have the inline links.

I understand that writing separate importers wouldn’t really be worth it, especially since Westlaw is clearly doing something weird. I’ll just put in a ticket to them.

Glad the RTF workaround worked. If you put in a ticket with Westlaw, be sure to mention that it happens in TextEdit, as that will tell them that it will affect any program using the standard OS X text system.

Thanks and all the best,
Keith