> From: Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>
> Date: Sunday, August 30, 2020 9:01 AM
>
> Thanks for getting back to this. That's a good summary.

You're welcome, and I'm glad I communicated your vision with a degree
of accuracy.

>> So I ask, in Lassi's vision of SRFI 198, how would an author of an
>> Oracle interface easily and with the least friction discover on
>> registry.scheme.org that there is a 'sqlstate convention, and the
>> multiple sub-conventions "under" 'sqlstate.
>
> I would do something like this:
>
> (make-foreign-status
>   'set 'oracle-ORA
>   'code 12154
>   'sqlstate "08004"
>   'message "TNS could not resolve service name")
>
> [...]
>
> These rely on the fact that some property names only make sense with
> particular foreign interfaces. 'oracle-ORA only makes sense with Oracle....
>
> Likewise, 'sqlstate only makes sense with SQL databases; if you FIND it....

Emphasis added to "find".

And I'm sorry I failed to communicate my question.  *Exactly* how
would the library developer consulting registry.scheme.org discover
"'sqlstate" and "'oracle-ORA"?  Would he navigate to a sub-page and
^F/F3 search for likely things, like "database", "RDMBS", "sql", etc.?

If there is such a sub-page, what limiting principle, if any, would
be used to decide which names to include in it, vs. ones that might
be in a sub-sub-page like fiddly details only relevant to Oracle
ORAs, PostgreSQL status returns, etc.?

> [ More good arguments for his position. ]

- Harold