> This uses arc's style of "leave out parens for grouping pairs" like you were doing, but also doesn't require the attribute parens if you don't have attributes.
I like that compromise and will definitely consider it. To be sure though, my current implementation doesn't require the attribute parens for nil attributes either:
On these cases, my html.arc and the compromise converge. It's for the non-nil attributes case that they differ, and I think it comes down which you dislike less: the tag name in the caar position or the @ symbols.
Yes, but your current method seems to lack consistency (at least to me).
In some cases, (script fn "somefn();") means script with attributes, in others it means that it has a body. The difference is where the (script ...) is located; at the car of a list or not. Personally, I like the consistency provided by "anything that's not an @ list is body" which means that you don't have to pay as much attention to the number and layering of parens.
