Perhaps what I wanted would be fulfilled if I can filter or sort srfis by "superseded". Would it be wrong to use keyword for it (maybe it is; it doesn't

feel to fit with the same category as other keywords.)

Contacting authors of the old srfi does sound a lot of work. That's one thing that I feel having "superseded" flag, which can be attached

without authors' approval, (But if we need to change the "status" section of the document we need author's approval after all. Hmm.)

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 5:53 PM Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:45 PM Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no problem with it.

Thanks.

Currently the "superseded" information is available on the srfi document itself but not on the index nor front-page (those two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superseded status. Adding 'superseded" status requires changing srfi process document, so if it's too much, it's ok
just to have a feature in srfi index site that allows searching by superseded flag.

I've been hoping that the "see also" links will spur implementers to check the SRFI documents themselves. If they do, they'll quickly see, in the abstracts, that one is intended to replace the other, especially if the old one is now marked Withdrawn.

I originally planned to add "superseded" information to the metadata that is displayed, but I've been reluctant to do that because some SRFI may be intended to supersede another, but may have been written by different authors than the original. For earlier SRFIs, it is often hard to track down the authors to get permission to do things like mark them as superseded. I decided to avoid the issue entirely. But if you and others think it would make a big difference, I can do it.

Thanks for the feedback.