Many thanks, Marc, for the new draft.  It's a definite improvement.

>From a first look (I'll have a second look tomorrow),
I'd still like to suggest two things to be addressed:

- Import of feature implementations (IMHO) *needs* to be made
  explicit.  Scheme implementations which load additional features
  on-demand (such Scheme 48) would *have* to say NO to any feature
  requested.  In the present form, there's little chance that Scheme
  implementations with such a design philosophy will adopt the present
  draft.

- By now several Scheme implementors have expressed their preference
  for a separate configuration language.  Richard, of course, Will,
  Donovan, and the Rice folks.  Is there a strong reason *not* to do
  it this way?

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla