XHTML is dead. I would work from HTML5, and keep HTML 4.x in mind.
I have considered a struct representation, and would definitely do that
if I were writing a Web browser, but for now, there's too much reason to
just use SXML and all the tools around it.
Note that for some purposes, an all-purpose HTML representation needs to
represent what would be invalid as HTML5. Not just for representing
parsed real-world HTML, but perhaps also for liberties that people will
expect with some of the countless kludgey Web frameworks:
http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket/html-writing/#%28part._script_.Element%29
Your `at-expr` format will have to support attributes as well as elements.
If you move forward with this new representation, let me know, so I can
add it to the list in: http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket/sxml-intro/
BTW, do you prefer the look of the `at-expr` text to the sexp-syntax one
of: http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket/html-template/
Neil V.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
