(missing)
(missing)
Re: Proposal to add HTML class attributes to SRFIs to aid machine-parsing Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (06 Mar 2019 10:12 UTC)
Re: Proposal to add HTML class attributes to SRFIs to aid machine-parsing Ciprian Dorin Craciun (07 Mar 2019 10:01 UTC)
(missing)

Re: Proposal to add HTML class attributes to SRFIs to aid machine-parsing Ciprian Dorin Craciun 07 Mar 2019 10:01 UTC

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 5:11 AM Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:
> The more I go through this process, the less convinced I am that HTML markup is a good solution.  HTML just isn't a great medium, especially when we're using a language with a great printed meta-representation like S-expressions.

I am "glad" (but on the other hand "sadden") that you've reached the
same conclusion as I did some time ago.

In fact I would go further than saying that HTML isn't great, and
state that any other "for-prose" format is not usable to extract the
kind of information needed for signatures.

> I'm going to stop now.  I don't think working through the rest of the SRFIs I selected is going to tell me much more.
>
> Ciprian and Lassi, I'm eager to see how your experiments turn out.

I'll try to work on SRFI 1 today.  (I have a few ideas where I want to
take a different approach.)

Ciprian.