>     It might also be a good idea to map out parts that correspond to
>     auto-withdrawn R6RS drafts and the new influx of R7RS-Large
>     submissions.
>
> Yes, that's a great idea.  Otherwise, things look bleak.

Good idea.

srfi-data.scm
(https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-common/blob/master/admin/srfi-data.scm)
doesn't state the reason why each SRFI was withdrawn. It hasn't even
occurred to me to think that it could. Arthur, as the SRFI editor, do
you think this would be a good or bad idea in general?

Perhaps the reason could be optional so things like the R6RS drafts
could have it filled in. Our scrapers can then get their information
straight from the official source, which is always the cleanest approach
where available.