That's a valid issue, definitely want to conform with Go standards and don't break anything. Like the "sql:" proposal very much, will change it to that!
I thought about it after commenting and was trying to think of a loose vocabulary you could introduce for "sql" to be interoperable among as-yet unwritten libraries, as jedsmith says on Github, and that's a pretty tough nut to crack. Letting it evolve over time is probably the right choice, so will be interesting to see how your choices impact the SQL landscape down the road.