Hello,

Artyom Bologov <xxxxxx@aartaka.me> writes:

> 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?

I haven't read the above link, but placing bounds on what HTML can be
used in the SRFI source documents should be good thing for downstream
users wanting to parse them. I'd welcome such a requirement; are there
existing tools that can validate the document is valid SubWeb?  I also
assume that existing HTML parsers like (htmlprag) are capable of parsing
it, which they ought to if the format really is a subset of HTML.

--
Thanks,
Maxim