From bc279e01f15a0bee0f4b2de7c63fcd4eabe4c932 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lucky <66523959+l-ucky@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 18:20:37 -0300
Subject: [PATCH] Update html_text vs html_text2.md

---
 html_text vs html_text2.md | 14 --------------
 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/html_text vs html_text2.md b/html_text vs html_text2.md
index ee3fd2a..139597f 100644
--- a/html_text vs html_text2.md	
+++ b/html_text vs html_text2.md	
@@ -1,16 +1,2 @@
-# html_text vs html_text2 from rvest
 
-I did an experiment comparing the `tidy_pol_fixed2` output of text.
-
-html_text = 21776 observations
-html_text2 = 20004 observations
-
-I will continue using html_text because it contains more observations, which I can later filter out the noise as needed. 
-There were no substantial differences that I noticed in the graphs, so retaining a greater number of observations seems better than less.
-
-From the rvest::html_text website:
-
-There are two ways to retrieve text from a element: html_text() and html_text2(). html_text() is a thin wrapper around xml2::xml_text() which returns just the raw underlying text. html_text2() simulates how text looks in a browser, using an approach inspired by JavaScript's innerText(). Roughly speaking, it converts <br /> to "\n", adds blank lines around <p> tags, and lightly formats tabular data.
-
-html_text2() is usually what you want, but it is much slower than html_text() so for simple applications where performance is important you may want to use html_text() instead.