There are some minor editorial changes I emailed about last time that
have not been added to the SRFI. Is there no new draft?

I still believe that every SRFI should have an identifier associated
with it. Even if they don't export identifiers, they can be used in
`(features)`, `cond-expand`, a future SRFI for systematic reader syntax
toggling, etc.

Even in the absence of that, I would add into the SRFI text that library
names specified in the SRFI metadata or the SRFI text should be allowed
as <name>s.

I will defend `<name>-NNN` over `srfi-NNN <name>` because it would
probably be easier for tooling like autocomplete that is not
specifically designed for the SRFI namespace. Being forced to write out
the name of the SRFI (especially in cases in which it is long, like
`generators-and-accumulators`) to refer to sublibraries sounds
cumbersome to me.

-- Peter McGoron