Ok -- to clarify you are talking about modifying the docx writer to produce 
an output which word better understands? I don't think that there will be 
many who object to these changes as the reference.docx has been the issue 
of quite a few bug reports. It would be even better if that with these 
changes, it is possible for a user to use any file with these default 
styles defined for reasonable results. Which if I'm understanding correctly 
would be an unintended but nice consequence. 

So for the record, I think 2 is the best solution.

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 10:14:27 PM UTC, Nikolay Yakimov wrote:
>
> Hi. I'm working on https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/pull/1968, and I've got 
> some questions.
>
> Some styles in reference.docx are marked as custom, some are not. Some of 
> those not marked custom are recognized by Word as built-in. Some are not, 
> however. Word automatically marks those as custom, but this introduces 
> unnecessary ambiguity. Furthermore, some styles not recognized by Word as 
> built-in actually duplicate built-in styles, and could be renamed to 
> reflect that.
>
> Here is a list of styles I'm most concerned about:
> Nameambiguoustypecan be replaced byAuthoryesp?Abstractyesp?Compactyesp?Image 
> Captionyespcaption?Block QuoteyespIntense Quote, Block Text, QuoteTable 
> Captionyespcaption?Definition Termyesp?Definitionyesp?FirstParagraphyesp?
> LinknocHyperlinkFootnote Refnocfootnote reference
>
> these are either ambiguous (again, meaning that they are neither custom, 
> nor Word defaults), duplicate default Word styles, or both.
>
> So the question is, what should be done with them? I've got the following 
> options:
>
>    1. Update reference.docx to define ambiguous styles as custom. Do 
>    nothing more. This is a quick-and-dirty solution.
>    2. Replace styles in reference with word-recognized ones as best I 
>    can, set those I can't as custom. This is a longer path, but leading to 
>    hopefully better user experience.
>    3. Do nothing at all, and hope for the best. This will likely lead to 
>    'surprises' in the future, and not the pleasant kind, I fear.
>
> First two options require significant updates to reference.docx though, 
> and option 2 is not strictly backwards-compatible with pandoc-created docx 
> (although it'll likely be a couple of styles, not much more).
>
>
> So, what are your thoughts on this matter?
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/d71ce0fa-d002-474a-8e6e-b97500b27352%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.