If you need to create a mini-ToC in the preface for each part of a book, such as is the ones you see in this very manual for larger chapters, you can follow the above instructions to produce a smaller scale list of sections. You will just want to select the relevant section instead of the entire draft and paste the ToC copy into the preface area for each part."
Is there a way to accomplish this without adding dozens of sections to the binder? I want to link to the third level in the semantic hierarchy, e.g.:
Chapter
Section
Article => level to be included in Sectional or Mini-Toc
Yes, itâs true that a document has to be an item in the Binder for a mini-TOC (or anything else) to link to it. But if the document is important to be in the TOC, itâs important enough to be its own Binder item.
Not for a mini-Toc.
This is legal writing, so itâs a specialized area.
A law may be divided into a Title, e.g. Title 18, Criminal Laws.
A Chapter/subject matter: Section: Narcotics Laws
Then hundreds of separate articles.
Hereâs an example. Iâm working with foreign laws, but the principle is the same.
The question was, âis there a way to create a Sectional ToCâ without adding the items to the binder.
So I guess the answer is âno.â
There are 2795 articles in Title 18. Waay too many for the Binder. Yes, itâs easy enough to do in LaTeX but Iâm trying to create an epub. Distributing a pdf is very complicated.
FWIW, Scrivener doesnât mind if you have that many items in your Binder.
In any case, the fundamental issue is that you need some way to mark TOC items, and Scrivenerâs metadata is designed to operate at the document level.
One alternative would be to assign Heading Styles in your body text, and then use some tool that can generate a TOC from Headings. I know that Word can, but Iâm not sure whether the Word â ePub path is any more reasonable than from LaTeX.
Scrivenerâs Compile command can also pass raw HTML straight through, much as it does LaTeX markup. So from there, you might be able to switch to a dedicated ePub authoring tool.
I tried manually inserting the information at the beginning of the chapter; the problem is that these are not active (or ciickable) links. Is there a way to make clickable links?
Perhaps this is just one usage case where Scrivener struggles. The latest idea is to compile to rtf and then import the file into Mellel. Mellel has an active title feature that makes ToC creation automatic and easy.
(There were âuncommandedâ issues on Compile in this particular document. Lists are semantic and cannot be altered; Compile to docx introduced 44 instances where the compiled text varied from the intended written text.)
Is it the visual of that many items in your binder that is your concern? If so, when you nest your articles one level down- Title>Chapter>Articles, you just collapse your binder view to the level that is visually comfortable. (And your toc would work)
fwiw, I also work in a strict industry-standard hierarchal format with thousands of sub-sets, sometimes in up to dozens of levels. I only ever expand my binder to the level I am working on if I need to see where it is in the binder.
I canât speak to your compile issues, as I am not familiar with what you are using.
I donât have to imagine. I built it. And use it. My âbookâ is actually multiple volumes in one project. It is highly structured non-fiction and has thousands of pieces and levels - many of which are not much more than a paragraph - which is necessary to conform to the industry standards for multiple publications and the accepted hierarchy for my genre. I also have accompanying narrative and proof arguments - which, if I understand your synopsis above, is not dissimilar to your legal structure or scope.
The multilevel structure works fabulously for me because, most importantly, I never let my my binder VIEW get overcrowded! I generally donât expand my binder view past the top level when Iâm working ie. the 1st or 2nd level - similar to your Titles. This keeps my visible binder âlistâ as short and sweet as I want it to be. I frequently even collapse my binder down to the single âdraftâ item and use searches and collections to get me where I want to go in a hurry). I NEVER expand all levels in my binder at once (at least not on purpose anyway. )- THAT - I totally agree - is unwieldly. However, drilling down one folder/document at a time is doable. I also make liberal use of document links, collections, tags, and metadata etc. to break out small pieces of the whole to work on. The bonus with this is your table of contents and links to the Articles would not be so onerous.
IMHO with such a massive project, I find it a lot easier to collapse my binder view of thousands of items with a single click than I do to write content in multiple programs and merge formats and programs into a happy and cohesive whole ready for compilation. (which to me is ânot workableâ ) But to each his own and thatâs what Scrivener does best. It allows every single writer to choose what works best for them.
If my workaround doesnât work for you, I take no offense. I merely meant to show you an option that worked for me when I was in a similar situation working with thousands of lower level documents.
My âbookâ is actually multiple volumes in one project. It is highly structured non-fiction and has thousands of pieces and levels - many of which are not much more than a paragraph - which is necessary to conform to the industry standards for multiple publications and the accepted hierarchy for my genre. I also have accompanying narrative and proof arguments - which, if I understand your synopsis above, is not dissimilar to your legal structure or scope.
)- THAT - I totally agree - is unwieldly. However, drilling down one folder/document at a time is doable. I also make liberal use of document links, collections, tags, and metadata etc. to break out small pieces of the whole to work on. The bonus with this is your table of contents and links to the Articles would not be so onerous.
) But to each his own and thatâs what Scrivener does best. It allows every single writer to choose what works best for them.