I have no problem with it.

But there's something I was thinking: Shall we distinguish "withdrawn without finalization" and "obsoleted/superseded by

newer srfi" more prominently? The former was purely a historical record. However, there may be implementations that

incorporated once-finalized srfi. The implementer may not track srfi development closely, then it is a bit difficult to find

which have been obsoleted when he comes back to srfi site several years later.

Currently the "superseded" information is available on the srfi document itself but not on the index nor front-page (those two

only has "see also" links.) It may just suffice to change these links to "supeseded by". It also help if we can filer by

superseded status. Adding 'superseded" status requires changing srfi process document, so if it's too much, it's ok

just to have a feature in srfi index site that allows searching by superseded flag.

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:38 PM Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 3:28 PM John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> wrote:
I'd like to request that SRFI 121 be formally withdrawn in favor of SRFI 158, which is a superset of it. Although the Red Edition still includes SRFI 121, the Tangerine Edition has replaced it for R7RS-large purposes with SRFI 158.

That's fine with me.

Shiro and Thomas, do you agree? You're both co-authors of both SRFIs, but I want to make sure.

Thanks.