In the long run, this is indeed true. In the short term, however, this is not
a WG project and we are not using WG 'due process' - just public discussion
leading to (hopefully) a rough consensus on a specification. This is indeed
an experimental specification, but it is a specification we hope to complete
by the end of June, _complete with namespaces_.
It would be nice if some of this proposal survives as part of an eventual W3C
specification, but it may well not. I'm focused on producing a workable
specification, not contemplating its eventual demise. For a discussion
XSchema/W3C WG issues, see
http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/9805/0454.html .
Also:
>Also; why would XML schemas have a different prefix than their XML
>documented counterparts -- XML Schemas will become part of the CORE
>specification, yes?
Someday they may, but we do need something for now. Their "XML-documented
counterparts" use <! syntax, not instance syntax, so they didn't need another
prefix.
John Cowan writes:
JC>Thus it is not necessary to standardize a prefix, although
JC>it certainly would be reasonable to recommend one.
Precisely. So may we recommend XSC?
Simon St.Laurent
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies