Scrivener Links - linking both ways & colour coding link

Hello forum!

Firstly, I love Scrivener.

Some initial thought, based on hammering it for a week.

1.I’m skimming through a large document and select “New Link” (cmd-L) to create a freah Scriv Link & Note (new document) all in one. This is mighty.
But what if a LINK BACK (internal link) was automatically added to the newly created note? Then I have a handy way of automatically refering back to the source doc, even if I alter the new scrive’d note’s name to something other than the original source title.

That would be very handy, when compiling notes from 100’s of disparate documents. Like all these things, it’s easy to link at the moment of creation, than do cleanup after the event.

  1. Would there be a way to quickly (visually) differentiate between internal Scrivener links and external html link?
    Scriv & HTML links within a document look the same.
    I know I could format them with a unique style - but that goes against the simplicity of the one button>link idea, which is great. I imagine you’d need to add a preference to: Highlight Scrivener Link in a Unique Colour, or pre-made style/format.
    Failing that , a simple on/of toggle that shows/hides HTML(eternal) links - but preserves SCRV ones.

Hope that’s clear.

Best wishes.

My current (brute force) way I do thisis to CMD+L the clipping into a document, then manually drag the parent page into the footer of the new page and make it a annotation.

That way, I have a inline ‘anchor’ back to my source, which is easy to strip out when printing.

Is there any way the exisiting command could automate this?

Perhaps: CMD,ALT,L to copy to new note with an Scrivner ‘linkback’ automatically formatted as an inline annotation.

That would be very, very sweet.

Anyone with me on this?

Just my 10p’s worth.

I, for one, would really love the ability to change the colour (and other style parameters) of any kind of link in Scrivener. Blue underlined links are so 1994! :slight_smile:

In Scrivener 2.0 both of these wishes are fulfilled. Scrivener links in 2.0 are green rather than blue, and documents to which links have been created have the originating document placed in their references table.

jebni - there will be no way to customise the colours, though. That way madness lies!

All the best,
Keith

fantastic. I can’t wait for 2.0.

Thanks for unpicking my rather verbose request!

Um, hidden preference, editable from the command line? :smiley:

Sorry, I know this isn’t supposed to be Scrivener’s core competency, but I enclose VoodooPad’s Appearance preference pane as an example – what I meant was not the willy-nilly changing of colours, but global adjustments.

I think I am the only person left that likes bright blue, underscored links that turn bright red when you click them and purple once clicked.

Nope. There are still 2 of us.

Three!!

Four.

Are we old, inflexible, unimaginative, or just lazy?

ps

Yes.

[size=75]Yes I see the ‘or’ there. This is what I like to think of as a thought provoking and humorous answer. Why I felt the need to explain this I don’t know. Maybe it is the lack of sub-zero temperature today. Who knows. Hopefully not vic-k.[/size]

Xor.

Are you sure about that? If you think about it he may not have wanted the and condition. Although I would challenge that with out expressly indicating an exclusive or test (xor) he implicitly inherits the and condition as well. Then again most consider or in the written to be xor anyway which further muddies the waters as we must now use the and/or syntax with which you were so anxious to correct Mr. S.

Which means that Mr. S and I ARE correct. I think.

Let’s go find that table and get back to what we do best. Pints on me.

Edit: Darn you AmberV!

Had he considered for a moment the rhetorical and grammatical and logical powers of certain (no names, mind you) frequenters of this forum, pjs would have written:

Are we old or are we inflexible or are we unimaginative or are we lazy, or does it require a combination of those qualities adequately to describe us, or is it the case that none of those qualities is in fact – by itself or in combination – sufficient to settle the issue, which is to ask, is there yet another quality or group of qualities or set of qualities to be adduced which will answer the questions, both the explicit and the implicit, or yet further, are we here confronted with a situation not amenable to the powers of rhetoric and grammar and logic, even as so expertly applied as may or may not be the case in this instance?

But he didn’t, and now – h/t Dr. Seuss – it’s too late.

Jaysen
or offers alternative, whereas, and, seems to indicate inclusion/combination. [size=150]and[/size]/or, just covers all the options.
Mr Sheenan`s syntax, was/is, as always, impeccable, and contains no ambiguity. He wonders whether or not we are: old, inflexible, and unimaginative, or something else: lazy! My adulteration of it was merely to indicate, that in my opinion, lazy, included with the other facets of the human condition listed, might be even more accurate.

You may be, but I`m not, familiar with, or, being used to indicate and/or. That could lead to very confusing and dangerous misunderstandings.
Take care
Vic

The or logic checks for a true condition in any of the items looked at. So if one or all items evaluate to true then the result is true.

The and logic requires that all items looked at evaluate to true. So if any one of them is false then the result is false.

So or includes and, but and does not include or.

Make sense yet?

So how long is a sumbermarine TRUE or FALSE?

or

Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

:slight_smile:

Are you married or happy?