At Fri, 2 Dec 2005 21:58:24 -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> If we manage to at least agree on libraries that are all in the
> "scheme://r6rs" (e.g., this SRFI), then we may eventually be able to
> agree on ways to portably define new languages --- where a new language
> could provide alternate bindings for names exported by "scheme://r6rs".

I forgot the simpler possibility, which is that we define additional
pre-defined languages, including one that only binds `import',
`export', and `indirect-export'. This seems likely to me.

Matthew