Update MyBibleZone verse tag parsing to conform to latest specification

[schierlm]

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 marker

Today's spec reads as follows (with more formatting as well):

Tag	Description
<e>…</e>	The pair of tags specifying that a text inside the tagged area shall be emphasized in the Bible reading window.
<i>…</i>	The pair of tags specifying that a text inside the tagged area represents inserted word(s), i.e. not present in the Hebrew or Greek Bible manuscript and added just for a sentence coherence in the module's language.
<n>…</n>	А pair of tags specifying that a text inside the tagged area represents a note (an explanation) added to the Bible text. Example: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. <n>there…: or, a mist which went up from, etc.</n>
<f>…</f>	Surround a footnote marker, which will be represented as a hyperlink to access a footnote for the verse - a footnote having the same footnote marker as the text surrounded by these tags. Example: <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:

• Check the latest specification against current implementation for all verse tags, to possibly find other discrepancies
• Take special look at <h> tag (as commented below)
• Create a test bible and visually inspect it using the Android app to see how latest Android app renders the tags. In particular, check whether <e> and <i> look different, and whether <e> is still rendered bold.
• Possible wade through my archive of MyBibleZone files to check for real world usage of these tags; if module is still available online, compare against latest version of the module

Presumably, the outcome will be similar to the following:

• By default, on exporting, export bold as <e> and both italics and additions as <i>. Export footnotes as <f> and never export <n>.
• Provide a strict option for exporting, where exporting both bold and italics as <e>, and only additions as <i>.
• When importing, import both <n> and <f> as footnotes (the footnote text coming from different places), and import <e> as bold and <i> as italic
• Provide an option for importing to import either <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.

[1p1v4]

The specification newly added <h> for titles as well.

[schierlm]

@1p1v4 Thank you for the feedback. Support for <h> has been implemented in c054aa4 (v0.0.7) already. But I will certainly review the spec for this tag to make sure it is implemented accurately.