standardization

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

The current version of the X3/SPARC proposal looks fine to me.
The only change I might suggest is to add to the section
"2.2  Recommended Scope of Standard" something along the
following lines.

This standard is not intended to stifle future innovation of Lisp
dialects and Lisp-like languages.  This is why it is called a standard
for Common Lisp, not a standard for Lisp.  This standard is intended to
codify Common Lisp at approximately its current level of development and
to supplement the existing informal, unofficial definition of the Common
Lisp language with a definition that is more suitable as a standard and
as a basis for industrial practice.  The standard language is expected
to serve as a platform for future innovations, and in addition we expect
that there will be future innovations within the Lisp language family
that do not include this standard as a subset.

These may not be exactly the right words to use.  My concern is that
when this document is published, its position within the world of
things that call themselves Lisp be clear.  I don't want anyone who
may be doing something with different goals from Common Lisp to feel
that we are trying to interfere with them.