On 11/18/2012 11:22 AM, John Cowan wrote:
...

Let me summarize what I think you're saying: This SRFI
should be purely about the reader extension: The syntax,
and how it is translated at read-time to normal S-expressions.
The semantics of those S-expressions (i.e. how they are
actually evaluated) should not be specified, but could be
a separate SRFI.

Not that I necessarily disagree - I have to mull it over
some.  I'm also curious if others agree with John.
However, two points to keep in mind:

First, I believe the semantics provide a rationale for the
syntax and the translation, in providing at least one
"natural" implementation that supports fairly complete XML
semantics within Scheme programs.

Second, I have tried to keep the semantics fairly flexible,
supporting different embeddings and implementation strategies.
Are there valuable semantics that are inconsistent with the
draft?  One possible issue is that I've focused on XML
constructors in Scheme *programs*, and not as raw data
in files.  Standalone data use isn't precluded by the SRFI,
but such usage might not be interested in the semantics.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/