On 3/5/19 10:18 PM, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> I continue to be impressed with pup <https://github.com/ericchiang/pup>.  Per Bothner's SRFI 164 already has a bunch of appropriate markup in it, so I've been experimenting with it and pup.

The SRFI 164 markup is not very consistent. Some of derived from texinfo source to the Kawa manual,
converted to DocBook, converted to HTML.  The generated HTML is a bit on the verbose and ugly side,
so I've manually simplified it in some places, and where I've added new procedures by hand, they
may be differently and inconsistently marked up.

Having a specification/recommendation to follow would of course help.)

On 3/6/19 3:53 AM, Lassi Kortela wrote:

> For example, here's how one might mark up a procedure definition:
>
>      <p class="h-proc-def">
>        <b>Procedure: </b>
>        <code>
>          <a class="p-name" name="make-array">make-array</a>
>          <var class="h-arg">interval</var>
>          <var class="h-arg">getter</var>
>          [ <var class="h-arg"><span class="p-type">optional</span>setter</var> ]
>        </code>
>      </p>

Why h-arg rather than p-arg?  I guess there is a case for either, but the
     <var class="h-arg"><span class="p-type">optional</span>setter</var>
seems rather verbose.

Also, note that in modern HTML this is deprecated:
     <a class="p-name" name="make-array">make-array</a>
It should be:
     <span class="p-name" id="make-array">make-array</span>
Possibly better: put the id attribute on the definition as a whole:
     <p class="h-proc-def" id="make-array">

The use of <a name="..."> shows output from Texinfo.  The latest
texinfo is has somewhat modernized this, though it still has a way to go.

Other texinfo artifacts/bugs are the <b>Procedure: </b> elements
(which are too "heavy"), and the missing parentheses.

--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/