[R6RS] draft Unicode SRFI

[Manuel Serrano]

Hello there,

I'm catching up mails on Unicode. In general, I like the proposal. However,
I have one comment and one objection. 

Comment:
I'm not sure to understand the issue about CR-LF vs Newline. I don't understand
the problem and the arguments. I have read about "opening a file in binary
or text mode". I have also read about "Unix files". This looks like to me
OS idiosyncrasy appearing in the proposal. Do we really have to discuss these
points in R6?

Object:
I'm really not in favor of here-strings. 

- First, I don't sure why we have to discuss this on the srfi about
  unicode.

- May be its because they are imposing constraints on the source code itself?
  What is the encoding used for expressing here-strings. Is is ascii,
  iso-latin, ut8, ucsXXX? How do we specify that?

- If I understand why here-strings could be useful, in certain contexts, 
  I find them specially unaesthetic. Mostly because they do not adopt an 
  s-expression like syntax. I have the impression of seeing SHELL-like 
  emerging in Scheme (it looks like a bad dream).
  
- I don't think that the syntax scales up very well. Let's me illustrate this 
  with two personal examples:
  In Scheme programs of my own, at two different places, I'm using "mixed"
  code (i.e., code that mixes two different syntaxes). First, in Skribe, as 
  I have said earlier with the [...] syntax. Second in a Web server where
  I use a {...} syntax for inserting JavaScript codes inside Scheme programs. 
  May be I'm just unlucky but for these two applications the here-string syntax
  is of no help for me! 


-- 
Manuel