As proposed in [1], I've changed the artifact names. poi-ooxml-schemas -> poi-ooxml-lite ooxml-schemas -> poi-ooxml-full I've debated with myself, if poi-schemas-lite/full would be less confusing as we already have a mandatory poi-ooxml (base) artifact, but I like the term ooxml better so I stick with the above ... Furthermore I'll release the schemas with every release - so no confusing mapping between ooxml schema versions and poi versions anymore. [1] http://apache-poi.1045710.n5.nabble.com/Update-to-ECMA-376-3rd-edition-provide-ooxml-schema-with-every-release-tp5736431.html
Applied via r1884381
Possibly, a bit late but I wonder if we should put the word transitional in the jar name(s) because we are working with the transitional xsd instead of the strict xsd.
(In reply to PJ Fanning from comment #2) > Possibly, a bit late but I wonder if we should put the word transitional in > the jar name(s) because we are working with the transitional xsd instead of > the strict xsd. Even if there's an issue #57699, I think this transition "never" ends and we won't support the strict schema in the near future and transitional sounds like temporary to me - "here we have some fresh schemas for you, but take them as they are hot" ;) I thought keeping the artifacts names short is also beneficial.