Why not move (language xyz) into (guile language xyz) as well?
+1
I’m not sure about all the top-level module thingies though, sometimes other implementations implement the same thing too. For example, Racket has an SXML implementation. If the API is compatible (and located under the same module name) (I don’t know if this is the case), keeping it under (sxml ...) would make sense. (If not, (guile sxml ...)?)
IMHO (sxml ...) would only be the best name for the library if the entire Scheme community agreed on what the API to SXML should be.
The tradition is that (scheme ...) and (rnrs ...) contain the libraries that are agreed upon in the Scheme reports, and (srfi ...) contains SRFIs. We don't (yet) have other standard namespaces, but perhaps we could.
The tradition in e.g. Python and C, where the standard library puts random libraries into the top-level namespace, starts from a culture that is dominated by one implementation. Scheme is the opposite.
