List Format for Legislation Quotes

Hi,

I’m reasonably new to Scrivener. I’m currently writing a book which includes references to legislation. Where I live, the local formatting for legislation is as follows:-

48 Section Title (The two items below should be indented but I can’t get it to do it on the Forum)
(1) The clause or paragraph
(a) The sub clause or sub paragraph.

How can I duplicate this in Scrivener so that it is consistent with the legislation layout.

Thanks.

Ric

Could you include a screenshot, please?

From your description, you aren’t looking for anything particularly challenging. Is the problem getting the list numbers indented, wrapping them in parentheses, or something else?

Katherine

Hi Katherine and thanks for your reply.

I’m attaching a screenshot as requested. I want the quotations in Scrivener to look the same as the format in the legislation.

Cheers,

Ric

[attachment=0]scrivener1.jpg[/attachment]

You can format text however you want via the Format menu. Appendix A.10 in the Scrivener manual breaks down all the available commands.

If you want to set up Styles to apply the desired formatting automatically, see Section 15.6 in the manual.

Katherine

Thanks for your help Katherine.

Cheers,

Hi again,

I must be missing something here. I can format a custom list to look as I want by using the Custom List feature. Unlike Word however, it only allows you to set the first character and not subsequent indents. Nor does it allow you to save it as a Custom List.

I have tried the Styles area suggested, but I couldn’t get it to hold the list structure I had already prepared in the document. The section on List Styles on Page 761 of the manual seems to be rather sparse on formatting custom lists.

Not the direction you are seeking, but I thought I would mention anyway. When I had to do something similar (showing the source procedure not the source legislation items you are working with), I simply screen-shotted the source and put in the Scrivener document as a PNG file sized to fit the paper. Much simpler for me and removed risk of re-writing the procedure (inadvertently).

Thanks for the suggestion RMS. I suppose that is one way around it.