Wolfgang,

>> It'd be nice if there was a requirement for authors to stick to what's
>> used in the HTML SRFI document template; but yeah with HTML being very
>> large and flexibly there's always going to be some wiggle room [...]
>
> I wouldn’t mind some stricter limitations on SRFI HTML, myself.  In
> general SRFI authors seem to use fairly simply code, but, for the
> purposes of long-term preservation, a well-defined format might help.
> (I again mourn the fact that WHATWG HTML cannot really be said to be
> stable or well-defined.)

There are multiple such efforts. SubWeb (one of such efforts) page links
to these: https://h3rald.com/subweb/#heading__Prior_Art. The main
takeaway is: HTML 3.2 + semantic HTML 5 elements are the best bet right
now. This is indeed pretty close to what most SRFIs look like, so maybe
there’s nothing to change besides the ethos?

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