Templater comparison

	eml	mlx	TyXML	TyXML let%html	dream-html
Syntax style	HTML	HTML	OCaml	HTML	OCaml
Data type	string	AST	AST	AST	AST
Tag balance	Unchecked	Yes mlx	Yes (OCaml)	Yes (Markup.ml)	Yes (OCaml)
Validation	No	No ?	Partial (OCaml)	Partial (OCaml, Markup.ml)	No ?
Escaping	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
VSCode support	No	No	Yes (OCaml)	No	Yes (OCaml)
Dune boilerplate	dune-project	dune-project	dune	dune	dune
Learning curve	Syntax interaction	JSX quirks	Polymorphic variants	Low ?	Low ?
Difference with HTML	0	JSX quirks	OCaml	Low	OCaml
Implementation	Simple parser	Dialect+PPX	OCaml	Markup.ml+PPX	OCaml

This resurrects #1181 by @gpetiot which stalled, as I understand it, due to a lack of

Rows omitted:

• Composability: all of these are composable through OCaml's own composition mechanisms.
• Control flow: all of these depend on OCaml control flow. With eml, the syntax for interleaving templates with control flow can be unclear.
• Emitted whitespace: haven't checked, but I would expect only eml emits lots of spurious whitespace, as is typical for a string-based approach.

Potential things to consider: performance, debugging, testing, coverage, docs.