On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:30 PM Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:
> I want to make sure that I understand your approach: Once you
> rewrite the SRFI document into a better format, you're still not
> planning to rely on it as a source of truth for signatures, etc.,
> are you?

You are correct.  I think -- as you've observed -- that the procedure
/ syntax "signatures" are too complex to be "marked-up" in HTML.  (I
gave examples in my previous emails where I've proposed the
S-expression based syntax for this.)

> Ciprian Dorin Craciun <xxxxxx@gmail.com> writes:
> | As stated in previous emails, although I agree that "something"
> is better than "nothing", and given the fact that you've managed
> to pull this is extraordinary, in the end the extracted
> information is not "complete" nor "reliable"...
>
> I view it as a nice way to bootstrap a database/file that will be
> audited by editors and other volunteers before being published,
> and thus is more reliable.

My issue with this approach is that it can't extract much more
information than it is already "visible" in the actual document.
Therefore my approach to HTML augmentation is mainly for better
formatted documentation, with visual cues.

If I manage to introduce with minimal effort some HTML markup to allow
some "signature" extraction that would be nice, but it wouldn't be my
main focus.

Ciprian.