Open schierlm opened 6 months ago
The specification newly added <h>
for titles as well.
@1p1v4 Thank you for the feedback. Support for <h>
has been implemented in c054aa4a9b1089d8b8671ad852b91fe7ff2b7622 (v0.0.7) already. But I will certainly review the spec for this tag to make sure it is implemented accurately.
Hi,
This was solved?
Thanks.
@paulocoutinhox
The issue with the <h>
tag has been solved. The big underlying issue (updating changes that were made to the spec) has not been started yet. It is nothing I can do in just a few minutes in the evening, I probably need a few hours for it. So it has to wait until I can find the time. Contributions by others are always welcome. Yet, for most use cases, these do not matter too much, so you can still use BibleMultiConverter to convert to or from MyBibleZone format.
As tested with LTT module in #92, <n>
tag is not rendered as footnote, but as gray italic text, like other programs render USFM's "\add" tag. Yet, the content in the <n>
tags is what should be in footnotes (whole sentences of description in the middle of a bible verse). Looks ugly in my opinion and distracts reading. With the new noteasfootnote option one can convert those notes to footnotes and then export the bible again to get "real" footnotes.
EDIT When long-tapping on the hamburger menu, there is an option to "hide explanations" which hides these <n>
contents.
When I implemented MyBibleZone format 8 years ago, the (English) documentation was a lot more terse than today.
For example:
<e>
(emphasis): bold text<i>
(italics): italic text<n>
(note): text added by translator<f>
(footnote): footnote markerToday's spec reads as follows (with more formatting as well):
<e>…</e>
<i>…</i>
<n>…</n>
<n>
there…: or, a mist which went up from, etc.</n>
<f>…</f>
<pb/>
Земля была пуста и пустынна, тьма была над пучиной, и дух<f>
[1]</f>
Божий веял над водами.Currently the
<n>
tag is interpreted like the<i>
tag in the new specification, i. e. like USFM's\add*
tag.Tasks:
<h>
tag (as commented below)<e>
and<i>
look different, and whether<e>
is still rendered bold.Presumably, the outcome will be similar to the following:
<e>
and both italics and additions as<i>
. Export footnotes as<f>
and never export<n>
.<e>
, and only additions as<i>
.<n>
and<f>
as footnotes (the footnote text coming from different places), and import<e>
as bold and<i>
as italic<n>
(for backward compatibility) or<i>
as addition.While at it, maybe create another issue to promote additions (which are currently treated as italic formatting with either extra attribute or css style) to their own formatting style. This will break forward compatibility of roundtrip formats, but since the current release cycle already has two such changes (one for XY strongs, the other for WIVU), better do this change in the same cycle as well.