Should phasing issues be mentioned in SRFI 211?

To my knowledge there is only one implementation of R7RS with a low-level macro system which strongly enforces phasing so far: Gerbil. And in Gerbil’s case you can’t actually access the low-level macro system, syntax-case, from within R7RS yet. (There may be others — I haven’t tested all systems which claim R7RS support extensively.)

In Unsyntax, Marc has adopted the ‘meta’ keyword from Chez to help with resolve phasing issues more easily: <https://www.unsyntax.org/unsyntax/features/syntax/meta/phasing/2020/10/22/meta-definitions.html>
I think SRFI 211 would be a good place to mention this keyword, since this SRFI standardizes syntax-case etc. where this can become a problem. But if it did, it would presumably result in SRFI 211 having to define what phasing is, and having to introduce language at least as strong as ‘It is an error to use an identifier which is not defined in the phase in which it is used’ or similar. Which we may need to adopt in R7RS anyway. But also I sense this is a touchy issue for those who reject R6RS, and SRFI 211 is thus far a very politically neutral document in that sense.

Daphne