We always favor an explicit positive or negative in a style in a
descendent, and only turn to the ancestor if nothing is set.
We also introduce an (empty) list of styles that are black-listed. We
won't check them. (Think underlines in hyperlinks).
Two points here: (1) We're going bottom-up, from styles not based on
anything, to avoid circular dependencies or any other sort of
maliciousness/incompetence. And (2) each style points to its
parent. That way, we don't need the whole tree to pass a style over to
Docx.hs
This cause problems on Windows 8, where the variable is called
`Path`.
Instead, simply trap the exception that will be raised by
`findExecutable` if path is not set.
This should fix#1542.
* Create a type synonym for MIME type (instead of `String`).
* Add `getMimeTypeDef` function.
* Avoid recreating MIME type `Map`s every time.
* Move “Formula-...” case handling into `getMimeType`.
We want to be able to read user-defined styles. Eventually we'll be able
to figure out styles in terms of inheritance as well. The actual
cascading will happen in the docx reader.
In docx, super- and subscript are attributes of Vertalign. It makes more
sense to follow this, and have different possible values of Vertalign in
runStyle. This is mainly a preparatory step for real style parsing,
since it can distinguish between vertical align being explicitly turned
off and it not being set.
In addition, it makes parsing a bit clearer, and makes sure we don't do
docx-impossible things like being simultaneously super and sub.
functions like runElemsToInlines and parPartsToInlines are just defined
in terms of concatting and mapping their singular
version (e.g. `runElemToInlines`). Having two functions with almost
identical names makes it easier to introduce errors. It's easy enough to
just concat and map inline, and it makes it clearer what is going on in
the code.
The big news here is a rewrite of Docx to use the builder
functions. As opposed to previous attempts, we now see a significant
speedup -- times are cut in half (or more) in a few informal tests.
Reducible has also been rewritten. It can doubtless be simplified and
clarified further. We can consider this, at the moment, a reference for
correct behavior.
