Scrivener and Word and TOC hyperlinks and PDF conversion, oh my!

OK. Conceding up front that this is an UNBELIEVABLY specific niche-y question . . . .

When I save as .rtf, my TOC has internal hyperlinks that jump you from the TOC to the relevant section. That’s awesome! But when I convert to PDF, those links vanish. That’s less awesome!

So: Does anyone know how I can create a PDF version of a Scrivener file that has persistent TOC hyperlinks? Here’s what I’ve tried.

  1. Compile as .rtf; reformat footnotes; save from Word as PDF --> result = no hyperlinks
  2. Compile as .docx; reformat footnotes; save from Word as PDF --> result = no hyperlinks
  3. Compile as .rtf; reformat footnotes; save from Pages as PDF --> result = no hyperlinks
  4. Compile as PDF directly from Scrivener; save as PDF --> result = TOC hyperlinks work : ) But footnote formatting is crappy : (

Any suggestions?

P.S. When I save from Word and Pages, I am selecting “optimize for electronic distribution” etc from the options menu, per various suggestions from the forums for those apps. I know this may not be a Scrivener question at the end of the day (though I hope there’s a Scrivener solution!), but if someone even knows how to do it from Word/Pages, I promise double points for Gryffindor : )

What’s wrong with the footnotes in the PDF created by Scrivener? I’ve worked pretty hard to make sure footnotes work well in a PDF.

That wasn’t meant as a slam at all!! Earlier this year, I asked about subformatting in footnotes (, and I understood the answer to be that for most people’s needs it works great . . . but that if you need complicated formatting within footnotes, it’s best to do it in a secondary editor after compile. I may have misunderstood that (extremely helpful) exchange of posts, but I wasn’t able to figure out how to do the note formatting I need within Scrivener itself, so I leave various markers (e.g. “BLOCK QUOTE HERE”) to guide subsequent micro-formattig in Word after the Scrivener compile. It’s totally a matter of my (again, concededly niche-y!) particular needs in one small slice of composition. Sorry – I think “crappy” was too quick/shorthand a way of making the point above. I didn’t mean it harshly; just speaking colloquially.

Ah, okay, gotcha. And yes, that is a limitation of inspector footnotes at the moment, because of the way they get inserted during Compile.

All the best,

Is there a road map to address this? I can see that it would not be a priority, but it would be helpful for some niche users…