I am sitting on my carpet surrounded by books about quantum groups, and the only categorical concept they discuss are the representation categories of quantum groups.


Many notes closer to "Kontsevich stuff" discuss matters in a far more categorical/homotopical way, but they seem not to wish to touch the topic of quantum groups very much....


I know next to nothing about this matter, but it seems tempting to believe one could maybe also phrase the first chapters of the quantum group books in a language, where for example quasitriangulated qHopf algebras would just be particular cases of a general "coweak ${Hopf\_\infty}$-algebra" (does such thing exist?). Probably then there should be some (${\infty}$,1) category around the corner and maybe some other person's inofficial online notes trying to rework such a picture in a dg Hopf algebra model category picture.


My quantum group books don't mention anything in such a direction (in fact ahead of a chapter on braided tensor categories the word 'category' does kind of not really appear at all). So either


1. [ ] I am missing a key point and just proved my stupidity to the public
2. [ ] There is a quantum group book that I have missed, namely ......
3. [ ] Such a picture is boring and/or wrong for the following reason .....


Which is the appropriate box to tick?



Why do my quantum group books avoid homotopical language?
The question is rather rambling and it is more about not so well-defined appetites (do you have a more conrete motivation?). 


There is one thing which however makes full sense and deserves the consideration. Namely it has been asked what about higher categorical analogues of (noncommutative noncocommutative) Hopf algebras. This is not a trivial subject, because it is easier to do resolutions of operads than more general properads. Anyway the infinity-bialgebras are much easier than the Hopf counterpart. There is important work of Umble and Saneblidze in this direction (cf. [arxiv/0709.3436](http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3436)). The motivating examples are however rather different than quantum groups, coming from rational homotopy theory, I think. 


Similarly, there is no free Hopf algebra in an obvious sense what makes difficult to naturally interpret deformation complexes for Hopf algebras (there is a notion called [free Hopf algebra](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/free+Hopf+algebra), concerning something else). Boris Shoikhet, aided with some help from Kontsevich, as well as Martin Markl have looked into this. 


Another relevant issue is to include various higher function algebras on higher categorical groups, enveloping algebras of higher Lie algebras (cf. [baranovsky (pdf)](http://www.mrlonline.org/mrl/2008-015-006/2008-015-006-001.pdf) or [arxiv 0706.1396](http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1396) version), usual quantum groups, examples of secondary Steenrod algebra of Bauese etc. into a unique natural higher Hopf setting. I have not seen that.


The author of the question might also be interested in a monoidal bicategorical approach to general [Hopf algebroid](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Hopf+algebroid)s by Street and Day. 


