Using compile - page break before
Can anyone tell me how to compile documents that are marked to compile "as is" with a page break before? I can't figure it out
Comments are currently closed for this discussion. You can start a new one.
Keyboard shortcuts
Generic
| ? | Show this help |
|---|---|
| ESC | Blurs the current field |
Comment Form
| r | Focus the comment reply box |
|---|---|
| ^ + ↩ | Submit the comment |
You can use Command ⌘ instead of Control ^ on Mac
1 Posted by keith on Sep 26, 2017 @ 03:24 PM
Instead of using "As-Is", use a section type for them (e.g. create a "New Page" section type in your project) and use the "New Page" layout in Compile's Section Layouts (if available for the format), or create a section layout in a custom Compile format that doesn't change the formatting but adds a page break before.
All the best,
Keith
2 Posted by Schweinkottfüge... on Sep 28, 2017 @ 07:24 AM
OK - I'll take a look at that this weekend. I've still not really gotten my head round the new compile process. In the meantime, can I suggest adding a page break before option to the "as is" section type?
Best,
R
3 Posted by keith on Sep 28, 2017 @ 08:56 AM
That would make no sense in 3.0. Section Types tell Scrivener what sections are, not how they will be laid out in Compile. You assign Section Layouts to Section Types in Compile for that. As I say, all you need to do is create a "New Page" Section Type and use that where you want As-Is+Page Break Before. Then assign it a Section Layout in Compile that will not touch the text but that will add a page break before it.
keith closed this discussion on Sep 28, 2017 @ 08:56 AM.
Schweinkottfügel re-opened this discussion on Sep 28, 2017 @ 02:01 PM
4 Posted by Schweinkottfüge... on Sep 28, 2017 @ 02:01 PM
"all you need to do"
I guess my user feedback is that felt like an answer I wouldn't have gotten to myself, and creating a new Section Type and a new Section Layout seems quite complicated when I just want to do exactly the same thing as the already available "as is" option but with a PBB. It still feels a lot like I need to go through several non-signposted dialogue boxes to make small changes.
5 Posted by keith on Sep 28, 2017 @ 02:28 PM
You're approaching this with a 2.x perspective. 3.0 works completely differently. You would have gotten to this answer yourself once you had familiarised yourself with how Compile works in 3.0 (explained in the tutorial). "Page Break Before" and "As-Is" were always kludges to work around limitations in the Compile system which no longer exist.
keith closed this discussion on Sep 28, 2017 @ 02:28 PM.
Schweinkottfügel re-opened this discussion on Sep 28, 2017 @ 04:24 PM
6 Posted by Schweinkottfüge... on Sep 28, 2017 @ 04:24 PM
Kludge is a funny word. :)
Thanks for the help.
Schweinkottfügel closed this discussion on Sep 28, 2017 @ 04:24 PM.
keith re-opened this discussion on Sep 28, 2017 @ 05:18 PM
7 Posted by keith on Sep 28, 2017 @ 05:18 PM
What I have done to make this transition easier for 2.x users is to add a "New Page" Section Type that will appear in projects created from "Blank" (along with "Group" and "Text", the vanilla defaults) and projects updated from 2.x. This just saves 2.x users from setting this up themselves.
That said, users with custom projects are most likely going to want to set themselves up some Section Types at some point. If you're starting from one of the templates ("Novel" etc), this is all done for you, but for other projects, you'll want to think about what the sections of your Draft are so that Scrivener can format them properly when it's time to Compile.
The shift is basically from a format-by-outline paradigm (which is nice but not very flexible) to a paradigm in which you tell Scrivener what each section is and then tell Scrivener how to format the different section types in Compile. (You can still set up the default types by structure to save having to set types manually, but users for whom working with a structure doesn't click can just ignore that and set all types manually if they want.)
So, now you say, "Hey Scrivener (uh, Siri?), this section is a scene. And so is this. But this is a chapter folder. And this is an introduction. And this is something else entirely." And then during Compile, you say, "Format scenes like this and chapter folders like this" and so on.
I'd almost prefer to find a different term for "As-Is" for that Section Type to avoid the 2.x confusion, but Ioa disagrees with me there. :)
keith closed this discussion on Sep 28, 2017 @ 05:19 PM.
Schweinkottfügel re-opened this discussion on Sep 28, 2017 @ 05:31 PM
8 Posted by Schweinkottfüge... on Sep 28, 2017 @ 05:31 PM
If you're looking for an alternative, you could call the As-Is Section Type "WYSIWYG".
9 Posted by Schweinkottfüge... on Sep 28, 2017 @ 06:48 PM
Or “None”
10 Posted by xiamenese on Sep 28, 2017 @ 08:10 PM
Dear Pigfender, you have obviously been finding, like I did some months ago, that those with a real learning curve ahead of them for Compile in Scrivener 3 are those of us who had really got our heads around Compile in Scrivener 2 and are now having to "think different", as the saying used to be!
I had a lot of trouble to begin with working out styles and the new section types, when I had developed a good work-flow before, complete with an NWP macro to turn my various presetted paragraphs and headings into proper styles. Basically, I found I had to forget all that, but now I'm pretty comfortable with the new Compile system, though no doubt I'll find other things that I'll have to sort out in due course.
11 Posted by keith on Sep 29, 2017 @ 08:00 AM
We've been having a discussion about this internally, and what we've realised is that we need to remove "As-Is" from the section types entirely. It just doesn't belong there. It was added to sort of smooth the transition for 2.x users, to provide something that could be used for existing "As-Is" documents in 2.x projects (which we'll still preserve another way) and as a way of having at least one built-in section type. But it muddies the waters and causes more confusion.
The whole point of section types is that you use them to tell Scrivener what a document is. Then you tell Scrivener how to format those sections in Compile. But "As-Is" is a way of formatting a document, not something that document is. You can already tell Scrivener to format any section "As-Is" via section layouts in Compile, because there is an "As-Is" section type. There's no need for both an "As-Is" section type and an "As-Is" section layout. So, the "As-Is" section type will be removed after today's beta, which will hopefully avoid some of this confusion and help users realise that they need to look at things a bit differently in 3.x.
keith closed this discussion on Sep 29, 2017 @ 08:00 AM.
Schweinkottfügel re-opened this discussion on Sep 29, 2017 @ 12:25 PM
12 Posted by Schweinkottfüge... on Sep 29, 2017 @ 12:25 PM
Sounds sensible. A lot of my wrong turns came from thinking "in the project" rather than thinking "for all kinds of future projects" in compile.
For example... one early grumble I had was:"why do I need Section Types and Section Layouts? I'm just creating a Type called Chapter and an Layout called Chapter and then linking them. Why the extra steps and extra things to forget / debug?" Of course, that's fine if I'm creating a compile preset just for a particular project (which I was at the time). The value became a lot clearer when I realised that I'm really designing a format preset that can survive a lot of different project structures.
Not that voting is a thing, but I would concur that removing as-is from the Section Types is a good idea. It doesn't really fit in the architecture philosophy.
13 Posted by keith on Oct 02, 2017 @ 12:41 PM
I have now removed "As-Is" from Section Types. For documents with "As-Is" set in existing projects (either in 2.x or 3.0), a project Section Type will be created and used for them so that it's still easy to set them to Compile "As-Is" by assigning that Section Type to the "As-Is" Section Layout. The only thing confounding us now is what to call the Section Type that gets created for projects that need it, because obviously calling it "As-Is" would defy the point of removing the built-in "As-Is" Section Type. It's "Text Block" at the moment, although we're also toying with "Verbatim", but that doesn't quite mean what it needs to mean...
keith closed this discussion on Oct 02, 2017 @ 12:41 PM.
Schweinkottfügel re-opened this discussion on Oct 02, 2017 @ 03:26 PM
14 Posted by Schweinkottfüge... on Oct 02, 2017 @ 03:26 PM
15 Posted by Ioa on Oct 03, 2017 @ 11:36 AM
"Xeroxed"
16 Posted by Schweinkottfüge... on Oct 05, 2017 @ 02:17 PM
Besides... you shouldn’t say “xeroxed” as this team of lawyers at Velcro helpfully explain: https://youtu.be/rRi8LptvFZY
System closed this discussion on Nov 30, 2017 @ 02:20 PM.