Ticket 231: WG1/WG2 Scheme naming proposal

Denis Washington made the following proposal for the names of the variants of Scheme defined by WG1 and WG2:

Hi,

I know it is a bit early to discuss this, but as I saw that this was mentioned again recently in the scheme-reports mailing list (in the context of module naming), I quickly wanted to write up a proposal of how the WG1 and WG2 standards could be named in the future.

First of all, I think that it is expected by many that what will end up being WG1 Scheme should labeled the actual "Scheme" programming language

• not "Small Scheme" or something - as this is what is thought as being

Scheme: a language that is minimal but practical. Also, WG1 is the only document that has mandatory language features, so it natural to still name every implementation that implements these features as a complete Scheme implementation.

Following this line of thought, WG2's all-optional modules and rules can be thought of as "extensions" to the core language, but extensions that are agreed up on (as opposed to implementation-specific).

So in summary, I'd like to propose the following names for the WG1 documents:

WG1: *Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme, Revised 2011* (abbr.: RS11)

WG2: *Report on Standard Extensions to the Algorithmic Language Scheme, Revised 2011* (abbr.: RSES11; alternatively, "[...] Commobn Extensions [...]", abbr. RCES11; should probably be "Published 2011" as there is no original document to revise.)

The standard module namespace could then be moved from (scheme ...) to,

5. g., (rsn ...) (analogous to (rnrs ...) from R6RS).

I hope this proposal is helpful.

Regards, Denis Washington