> I think both are useful depending on the context.   If I need to
choose, I suggest to keep bytevector<? etc. consistent with the
default comparator (length order), and incorporate bytestring<? from
SRFI-207 for lexicographical ordering, enhancing it to take more than
2 arguments.   The name clarifies that the user wants to treat the
bytevector as a string of octets.

I think in a future draft I will remove bytevector<? in favor of a
future SRFI that is SRFI 152 adapted to bytevectors (SRFI 207 only
contains a subset of operations, and is polymorphic over ASCII characters).

This SRFI can be thought of as "bytevectors as representations of
objects," because it parses Unicode, serialized numbers, and base64,
while that future SRFI can be thought of as "bytevectors as strings of
bytes."

-- Peter McGoron