Scrivener's Word docs don't work with Quick Look

I have noticed that when I export texts as Word docs, or compile a draft and save it as a Word doc, the resulting Word doc doesn’t work with Quick Look, whereas Rich Texts do. There must be a quirk in the translator, as I haven’t experienced this issue with any other application.

Any thoughts?

Rollo

See the section on “Export Formats” in the Help file for an explanation of this. (Nisus Writer is the same.)
Best,
Keith

OK Keith, that’s an interesting one! I see what you’re doing, but wouldn’t it be better to export as a true Word format as this smacks of a bit of a compromise? I can’t speak for Nisus Writer as I don’t use it, but as far as I am aware none of the other apps I use which can export to Word format have this problem. This is just an example of what I meant when I said that Scrivener, whilst very polished for the most part, is lacking a bit of polish here and there.

Rollo

Rollo, please take a look around the forum and do a search. This is actually an example of Scrivener being very polished. Out of interest, how many of those other applications of which you talk export footnotes, comments, headers and footers and images to .doc format? Outside of Pages (and OpenOffice and its ilk) I doubt you will find any. I have posted ample on why the “disguised” format is necessary, so I will leave you to find my longer posts and explanations for this. Then you might want to write to Apple and ask them to provide us developers with a better .doc converter. I certainly don’t intend to spend months writing my own .doc converter when Word can open RTF just fine.
Regards,
Keith

A quick forum search brings up the following topics, the first one of which explains well enough:

https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/compile-manuscript-to-microsoft-word-produces-rtf/3565/2

https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/exporting-to-word-a-major-flaw-in-story-mill/3693/2

https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/fatal-flaw-for-pages-to-replace-word/3900/2

https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/word-files-corrupted-with-compile-manuscript/3848/6

https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/newbie-export-options/3424/3

Note that the alternative is to get rid of .doc support altogether, or have it strip out annotations, footnotes and headers and footers (the latter will be an option in the next update for those who require pure .doc, e.g. for palm tops).

Keith

Keith,I wasn’t commenting on the ability to export footnotes, comments, headers and footers or images to Word. Nor did I mean to hit a nerve by commenting on the polish of the app. I am merely concerned that it the exported documents don’t work with Quick Look.

I just tried exporting from DTPro as a Word document and it shows up perfectly with Quick Look. The same with Mori. They both work fine, so I am sure it can’t be that hard to achieve the same thing with Scrivener. You have a relationship with Jesse Grosjean, so it should be easy enough to find out what he did.

Rollo

OK I’ve read these now. I understand where you’re coming from, and yes I now appreciate what Scrivener can do that other apps can’t. Solve the Quick Look issue and I won’t have an issue.

Rollo

There is no way to solve the Quick Look issue, that is the whole point - not without getting rid of support for footnotes, annotations, images and so on. You can solve the Quick Look issue yourself by opening the file and saving it again in Word.

All of the apps you mention don’t support annotations, footnotes, headers, footers and images. They just use the standard .doc exporter that Apple provide. Try exporting a document that contains an image as a .doc file from one of those applications and you will see what I mean - the image disappears.

I have spent months and thousands of lines of code fixing all of this in the RTF exporter. I’m not about to write my own .doc importer/exporter, though.

As I say, in the next update you will be able to choose to export to “true” .doc - but at the expense of losing footnotes, annotations, images and so forth.

You’re right … and it was these abilities I was referring to when I said “yes I now appreciate what Scrivener can do that other apps can’t.”

I think that’ll be an excellent compromise. I now understand the limitations, but it will help, and I will probably use that format on many occasions as I email chunks off to clients for their comments etc.

Thanks for your patience.

Rollo

Rollo,
Quicklook is still fairly new but much anticipated technology. When it first came out it was limited in what formats it could “support” in allowing a “quickview”. One that was missing from the initial release was support for EPS.

But the good news is many people are developing “plug-ins” for quicklook to support more formats than originally installed, allowing more functionality for Quick-Look.
quicklookplugins.com/

So to answer your question. It is not a matter of Keith making the export SCR more Quicklook friendly but more so that a QuickLook Plugin developer needs to develop a plug-in that can preview the Export Format that SCR uses (as KB explained the disguised format is used for a good reason).

Hope that helps?

Thank you Wock. Much appreciated.

Rollo