• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• To: "'Edd Dumbill'" <edd@u...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:34:12 -0000

> 
> It's just this kind of thing that gets XML a bad name. The 
> horse of XML Schema bolted a long time ago. Making clarity 
> suffer in the name of correctness is a poor decision.
> 

Eh? I'm sure it's correct that many people would assume that a W3C
specification for "xml-schema" refers to the W3C specification entitled "XML
Schema", and that it's therefore better to choose a different name. That's
for the sake of clarity, not for the sake of correctness.

Michael Kay
Saxonica

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: "Glidden, Douglass A" <Douglass.A.Glidden@b...>
  • RE: Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: rjelliffe@a...

• References:
  • Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: Edd Dumbill <edd@u...>
  • Re: Draft of W3C Note available for review: AssociatingSchemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@k...>
  • Re: Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: Edd Dumbill <edd@u...>