Arthur,

> It looks good, but I'm nervous about making it the default, especially because it would affect old SRFIs.

Totally fair! One approach could be introducing a new stylesheet and
including it by default in new SRFIs. This way we’d have more readable
new SRFIs without breaking old ones. But I realize that adding yet
another file is not the best solution.

> I'd be happy if three or four SRFI authors got together and recommended some standard CSS improvements, then presented them on
> srfi-discuss. The risk of bike-shedding is high, but if there were some consensus, I'm sure we could make newer SRFIs look better and be
> more readable.

Count me in!

> By the way, I made one small improvement to the CSS back in May: HTML #target links are shown with an arrow in the left margin. Otherwise,
> it's often nearly impossible to tell what text the link references. See this one in SRFI 248, for example.

Yeah, the arrow is a fun one, and useful too!

> I tried SRFI 275 in EWW, Emacs's web browser, which doesn't support CSS at all. The signatures in SRFI 275 still look fine there.

True, it does work in many browsers. In Dillo, it’s slightly broken
font-wise, but still readable-ish. Actually, forget this point. It’s
mostly fine.

Still, my other points stand.

Best of luck,
--
Artyom Bologov
https://aartaka.me