PLT's intent to support SRFI's?

[Paul Schlie <schlie@mediaone.net>]

gentlemen,

out of curiosity, is there any intent to integrate support
of (or approximations of) any of the SRFI's specifications?

particularly those which may further (arguably) simplify or
increase the symmetry of the language's syntax/semantics, such
as SRFI-5, and possibly the more controversial SRFI-17?

lastly a minor confusion, what's the philosophical position on
prefixing or postfixing extended procedure naming, for example:

(i.e. syntax-case vs. case-lamda )

seem inconsistent with each other; any chance of adopting
R5RS's apparent naming convention form for case-lamda, etc.?

(i.e. case-lambda -> lambda-case )

thanks, just curious.