I've already addressed all your below points in these messages:

http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-103/mail-archive/msg00087.html

http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-103/mail-archive/msg00090.html

(Read the entirety of the messages.)

--
: Derick
----------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 2010-01-10 at 19:42 -0600, Eduardo Cavazos wrote:
> Derick,
>
> In order to support SRFI 103, an implementation would have to recognize
> and honor the 'r6rs-lib' file extension for R6RS libraries. However, the
> 'sls' extension is a defacto standard. I'm assuming that implementations
> could also continue to honor that extension and be compliant with
> SRFI-103.
>
> If the 'sls' extension can continue to be supported while being SRFI-103
> compliant, then I'm less opposed to the mandated extension.
>
> What's your view on this?
>
> Ed