> thank you for this explanation. So your approach is actually rather
> different than what is described in the non-normative appendix D of the
> R6RS.

Yes - it goes much further. I now realize I didn't make this clear
enough. Sorry about the misunderstanding, and thank you for your patience!

> In the understanding of this appendix, a script is just any top-level
> program packaged in a standardized form so that it becomes executable by
> the host OS.
>
> You, on the other hand, don't view every "conventional program" as a
> "script" and vice versa. Moreover, as the script interpreter in the
> shebang line of your approach isn't necessarily a Scheme implementation
> but calls one after parsing the script, the script in your approach does
> not even have to be an RnRS top-level program. In essence, we have to
> agree on some format from which the script interpreter can extract
> source code for various Scheme implementations; even automatic unpacking
> of shar-like-packaged source code could be possible. Moreover, the
> script in your approach could even include library definitions, which is
> not possible with top-level programs.

Exactly!