Ciprian Dorin Craciun <xxxxxx@gmail.com> writes:

| I don't think we need that all authors "fill" the data for their SRFI's.  I imagine that the willing authors will fill the data for their own SRFI's, meanwhile as time permits they can contribute other SRFI's in a collaborative manner.

Yes, exactly.

| I'll try to come up with an s-expression based format that will catch the minimum information and see where we can go from there.

Thank you.

| I will provide the example for SRFI-1 (as I've manually built that list myself), and also for R7RS (which although not an SRFI I think needs to be present in such an index, especially since many of the R7RS definitions are borrowed from various SRFI's, and many SRFI's re-export some R7RS definitions).

That's an excellent point about R7RS-small.  Perhaps we can have one ready for R7RS-large once it is announced.  Since R7RS-large will be based on many SRFIs, efforts on those SRFIs will be doubly rewarded.

| As a side-note, I am accustomed with Racket, and such I'll use that as the environment.  Does anyone have any objections?  Moreover the format I will propose will be as simple as possible so that one can use standard functions (basically `assoc` and firends) to handle it, and at the same time to be 1-to-1 convertible to JSON so that we can build HTML views over this data.

It's fine with me, especially if you plan to share your code.