I don't have any more "exotic" needs (at least, not yet). However, I mostly export directly from Scrivener to PDF, Word or Open Office, and have experimented with direct export to. I've looked at Pandoc it seems really powerful. And it will tend to emphasize document production as opposed to "tending the said:ĭo you use Scrivener + Pandoc as well? Scrivener + LaTeX? This will give me the corkboard feature of Scrivener when it is needed. The technical issue is to ensure that Pandocomatic will read the same configuration files that Zettlr reads (or a computed function of them), to be used with Scrivener. Any repetition can be resolved within Scrivener and fed back into the Zettelkasten. The plan now is to leave the Zettelkasten as it is and add Scrivener for projects that draw on the Zettelkasten. A solution: dissolve the problem by postponing it Pandocomatic will read the pandoc export files that I defined with Zettlr for LaTeX and PDF LaTeX, and the modified latex template for pandoc, and will perform the same export function from Scrivener to LaTeX and PDF latex that I have for Zettlr. Scrivener will only allow references to media files, but not to markdown or text files, so importing and exporting markdown is unavoidable.Īgainst that, Scrivener will work with pandoc, and a ruby gem called pandocomatic. Because Scrivener represents text files in rich text format, the workflow has to include importing markdown files of the Zettelkasten into Scrivener, working with them in the corkboard, and then exporting them. Scrivener has a "binder" feature, through which documents can have sub-documents that can be visualized on the Scrivener corkboard. Scrivener 3 could be used to impose some additional structure on the Zettelkasten. What was lacking? A means of visualizing, adding, removing and re-ordering notes prior to re-combining and synthesizing notes into a new note (possibly a structure note), and prior to simplifying existing notes. And this prior issue cannot be resolved by saying "use Folgezettel or use Structure Notes." The "having an overview in advance" prior to the creation of a structure note, combining or simplifying notes is at issue. The structure note presupposes having in advance such an overview e.g., an outline or an ordering. Structure notes could help up to a point, but they had to be written and modified in addition to the notes already present, and they couldn’t substitute for the kind of overview possible by spreading notes out on a surface. My Folgezettel IDs were too abbreviated for this. I thought about printing notes and marking them up or jotting down IDs and titles of notes that I wanted to edit, and indicating edits on paper, but I kept putting that off. The ability to spread cards on a table for comparison is one of the advantages of physical Zettelkasten over digital Zettelkasten. Switching from one note to another in Zettlr is inefficient for comparison. Some notes could be combined and condensed others could be split into several notes. Reconciling similarities among notes had become a bottleneck. I am missing a visualization feature that Luhmann had (and that Nabokov had, for that matter): the ability to spread note cards out on a table. I have another problem-which could be due to my workflow, but maybe not. Now in my experience, I think the Folgezettel/Timestamp/Structure note wars miss the point. The drawback is that the original running text is often interrupted by hundreds of notes, but if you are methodological with the numbering.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |