No argument,

extensions are extensions, just don't think it should be "standard".

(as such I suspect you're arguing it shouldn't be explicitly prohibited,
 which seem quiet reasonable.)

-paul-

> From: "Bradd W. Szonye" <xxxxxx@szonye.com>
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:05:37 -0800
> To: xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org
> Subject: Re: Encodings.
> Resent-From: xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org
> Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:05:47 +0100 (NFT)
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 02:02:35PM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
>> Yup, same basic page; with a few asides:
>>
>> - still don't suspect it's a good idea to specify any particular encoding
>>   for scheme's required character-set.
>
> Agreed, but I don't have any problem with a SRFI or standardized option
> that permits it and defines "this is how it should work if you implement
> the feature."
>
>> - still don¹t suspect it's a good idea to allow potentially non-portable
>>   characters to be used in identifier or comments.
>
> This is effectively saying that extensions in this area are bad, and I
> can't agree with that.
> --
> Bradd W. Szonye
> http://www.szonye.com/bradd
>