No worries. I didn't spot it either.  Of course, copy editing your own stuff is much harder than other people's; in this case I saw it because I needed to reread it to make sure it still fit with SRFI 170.

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 2:07 PM Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:37 AM John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> wrote:
As a result of a bad merge, part of the Specification section is duplicated.  The words "It is recommended, but not required"  through "a sufficient representation" in the next to last paragraph should be deleted, and the sentence fragment in the previous paragraph joined to what's left of this paragraph.

The result will be the following one-sentence paragraph:  "Note that IEEE 64-bit floats are not a sufficient representation for timespecs, because their nanosecond-precision range is confined to a period of 208 days centered on the epoch."

In addition, the backquotes in the Implementation section are unconverted Markdown, and should be replaced by <code>...</code> HTML tags.

I don't think that a post-finalization note is required here, just another line in the Status section.

That is terribly embarrassing.  I carefully read over every SRFI before finalization, so I expect that I'll catch anything like this, but I didn't.  Sorry about that.

I've made the fixes and published a new version.

Thanks.