> Text.Html seems to generate HTML 3.2. It is too obsolete to use,
> isn't it? Are there any plans to support HTML 4.x or xhtml?
> It is true that WASH-HTML (and other libraries?) can generate xhtml.
> But the situation that the standard library supports legacy version of
> HTML only is bad.
> IMHO, the Text.Html should be rewrite to generate HTML 4.x, or the new
> library named Text.Xhtml should be introduced.
Yes, Text.Html needs a lot of work. There's a slightly improved version
in Haddock. I think I asked a while back if anyone was interested in
updating it, and didn't get any responses.
We should consider whether Text.Html should be
(a) just an improved version of what we have now
(b) WASH's HTML library (or a derivative thereof)
(c) an instance of a more general XML library
(d) something else?
I only have experience with (a), and I find it mildly inconvenient: the
overloading doesn't really seem to buy much, but the table support is
quite useful. (b) has a fully typed HTML implementation which prevents
ill-formed documents, but the downside is that types are large, and type
errors can be incomprehensible.