On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 9:46 PM Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote: > That would be a fair approach. We would have to agree on the format in which the index was stored, e.g. Ciprian's suggested format, so that more than one tool could make use of that data. In the end this "index" format doesn't matter much. It does matter "what" we include in it. In my initial proposal I wanted to touch also the subject of "signature". If we just care about `cond` is a "syntax" defined in SRFI-Z, then even a CSV would be enough. (Although JSON would be advisable.) :) >> Thus my proposal would be the following: >> * we come-up with some "document format"; (regardless at this moment >> what it is;) >> * those editors that want to use this format can do so; >> * for those editors that prefer HTML / LaTeX or something else, we >> just take the final version of their SRFI, and manually convert it; > > I'm guessing that you mean "authors," not "editors," above. Yes, the "authors" can choose either "the proposed" format or their current solution. However in my view the "editor" (i.e. you, me or one of the other volunteers) has a more active role in the final document preparation. It's not just "take this HTML/PDF and export it into XHTML perhaps placing some classes"; in my view the editor takes the text and more "actively" formats it, just like the editor of a book or magazine would. > That sounds like a reasonable plan. Would you and Lassi be willing to prepare a proposal together and submit it to <srfi-discuss> for public discussion? At the moment I think some more "brainstorming" would be better. (I don't mind moving this off the list, however I think it's better to have this discussion open, as perhaps other authors could contribute their view.) BTW, the IETF has just gone through a similar approach by moving RFC's from plain text to an XML-based format: https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/ Perhaps we could just reuse their tools? (They are / will be better maintained than anything we can come up with.) Ciprian.
