- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:12:28 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4399 ------- Comment #1 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com 2007-03-21 14:12 ------- I'm sympathetic to the spirit of what's proposed. Michael suggests: > One possible new name: call the language not the > "XML Schema description language" but the "XML > Schema Description Language", XSD or XSDL for > short; change the main title line of the spec from > "XML Schema 1.1: Structures" to "XML Schema > Definition Language (XSD) 1.1: Structures"; change > references to "XML Schema" in the text to "XSD" or > to some other phrase, as appropriate. I'm a bit surprised, as this seems only marginally less generic, and by the way just a bit clunkier. My intuition is that with a name like this, people will still informally call it the XML Schema Language anyway. I do understand that it goes some way toward licensing the use of the "D" in "XSD" as more than an artifact of the conventional file extension of our schema documents. FWIW: I'm a little more in favor of: Title: W3C XML Schema Definition Language First of all, definition feels a bit closer to the mark to me than description, but I wouldn't burn a lot of time on that if there's disagreement. I think this also supports the usage I've adopted in polite company, which is to call it the "W3C XML Schema Language" or for short the "W3C Schema Language" when there's likely to be either ambiguity or sensitivity. The word "definition" also supports XSD as an informal shorthand for those who prefer it, though I find that I don't. Still, I wouldn't particularly object to: Title: W3C XML Schema Definition Language(XSD) which would go some way toward making formal what people are doing anyway. Noah
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:27:48 UTC