> I think it is fair to use the scheme-script name for scripting that doesn’t assume a specific version of Scheme.  A cond-expand could be used in the script (and probably has to for short-term portability) to support both R7RS and R6RS (and R5RS).  There could be a specific scheme-r6rs for scripts that are specific to R6RS (SRFI 22 had suggested the name scheme-rNrs such as scheme-r4rs and scheme-r5rs).

This is exactly what I would prefer as well, and sounds like what a
layperson would expect the "scheme-script" and "scheme-rNrs" commands to
do based on their names.

A lot of useful scripts will need cond-expand for years to come. If we
specify the semantics of scheme-script in a SRFI, we are free to mandate
cond-expand support even in R6RS implementations of that SRFI. (I have
no idea whether it's a good or bad idea to mandate it, just thinking out
loud.)