Two series of footnotes

I need some suggestions. I am working on a new edition of an old book which has already footnotes. I would like to add my footnotes to the main body text of this book. The final project will be worked on Indesign for a printed edition.
Here is my question: which is the best way to distinguish the two series of footnotes (author’s and mine)?. Do you have any suggestion on inserting in the project these notes and then compiling for Indesign?
Thank you for your help.

Scrivener has two seperate streams of footnotes: Inspector footnotes and inline footnotes. These allow you to easily keep your footnotes and the orginal author’s footnotes distinct.

While inspector footnotes are displayed in the inspector pane at the right, inline footnotes are, the name tells it all, displayed at the very location in the main text where you insert them. A grey bubble keeps them distinct from the main text.

The longer inline footnotes are the more distracting they become. A short reference like “Miller (1986), p. 25” might do okay, a whole paragraph not.

For the case that both the original author’s notes and yours have a tendency of getting a little longer Scrivener holds a great workaround for avoiding inline footnotes: Inspector commentaries. Usually commentaries are used as reminders and such for the writer or his/hers collaborators—and they are excluded from the final output of the text.

If you don’t use the commentaries like this you might use them as a second stream of inspector notes (the real inspector notes are grey and comments are yellow, so there won’t be any confusion here). You can do that because Compile allows you to export them as notes.

And here we are: Compile. Compile allows you to merge inline footnotes and inspector footnotes (which is not what you intend) or to export one of them as footnotes and the other as endnotes. I understand that you don’t want to have endnotes but this allows InDesign to recognize two seperate streams of notes. And while I have never worked with InDesign am pretty sure that it can convert endnotes to a second stream of footnotes.

The one limitation you have to face is that both footnote streams and comments are linked to the main text body. You cannot have a footnote in a footnote! If you need this I fear you would have to help your self with some selfmade markup like brackets or such: {{footnote in a footnote content}}.

Like I said, I don’t know InDesign but I do know it is a pro software that has to handle texts coming from word processors all the time. From word processors that mostly don’t even know about two note streams (the one coming to my mind that does is Mellel). So most certainly InDesign will have advanced search and replace functions for cases like these.

My advice for you is: First drag the icons for inspector footnotes, inline footnotes, and comments into Scrivener’s toolbar. If you are a keyboard shortcut person learn their shortcuts or customize them.

Then create a dummy text. A page or a little more of main text with notes and comments of all possible kinds. Find out which you like most working with on a huge project.

Then try different kind of outputs: Compile lets you set either inspector footnote stream to footnotes or endnotes, if you go for inspector comments as the second note stream you can set them to either type of notes too. Play around with the different possible combinations and import them to InDesign. If it is not you doing the InDesign work give the files to the person working for the publisher or who else does it and communicate with that person.

Try to find out what is the perfect combination of notes and notes output options for both your writing process and the conversion process in InDesign before you start the real work.

Thank you for your wonderful reply. I will try your suggestions.
Have a nice day.

Hello all,

Many thanks for the information above. I was tempted to start a new thread on this - but figured this question has no doubt arisen before - although probably (like here) inside a thread, which makes it a bit trickier to search for [I’ve tried! :blush: ]

Could someone please confirm what I think I now know: :neutral_face:

Inspector footnotes would be more ideally suited for those types of footnotes, where plenty of text is included? For instance - in law, whereas you might list the reference to a case - one could also discuss the implications of that case, and even bring in additional discussions from other articles about that case… The footnotes on any given page, can occasionally take up 3/4’s of the space available, depending on the specific discussion being required at that time…

Conversely, would Inline footnotes therefore be better suited to that situation where one is simply listing the case reference, i.e. a short, succinct piece of text that is to be inserted?

I guess what I’m asking - is whether, apart from the difference listed above (which essentially boils down to how the “footnote text” is displayed in Scrivener’s editor - upon exporting to the RTF to be converted/opened in Word - the final result is exactly the same? And accordingly - if one is going to have many lengthy footnotes, that would be better suited to Inspector footnotes, then one may as well stick to placing all one’s footnotes in the Inspector?

Am I understanding the above correctly? I would greatly appreciate confirmation of same, before I begin!

Many thanks!

That’s correct, the differences between the two footnote and comment styles are entirely work-flow and usability related. They can be set to produce identical results in the compiler (this is their default). It is possible to mix things up though. For example one could use inspector footnotes for endnotes, and inline footnotes for end-of-page notes. The user manual goes over some of the work-flow related differences between the two, starting a bit down pg. 241.

Perhaps, but it doesn’t really matter too much since they both come out the same. I would for instance prefer to have short citations right in the main text rather than off in a sidebar. They are short, and having that information as easy to read as the base text is useful. In short use whatever works best for you. There aren’t any rules to which you should use.

Much obliged for your detailed response!

Having worked through McElhearn’s book and the Tutorial, I’m slowly getting into things… I also intend to actually read the manual! :smiley: Will jump to 241 first, though!

There does seem to be a significant difference. inspector footnotes have to be normal text, so I use inline footnotes for ones containing equations or any non text material that cannot go into inspector notes. Unfortunately neither seems to accept images, though I have not tried links to external picture files.