This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Every published draft of the Structures specification has described Structures as specifying (part of) the XML Schema definition language. And every draft has used XML Schema (with or without a 1.0 or 1.1) as the short name of the language. The short names "XML Schema" and "XML Schema language" have predictably led to confusion. In writing, one can say that "the XML Schema language is one of many XML schema languages", and even a moderately careful reader may follow the train of thought. But try to say it aloud, and you will be forcibly struck by the futility of relying on the difference between uppercase S and lowercase S to carry the difference between a proper noun (the name of our langauge) and a common noun phrase (which denotes an infinite class of languages including ours). We would do ourselves, and everyone who writes, speaks, reads, or listens to people speaking about schema languages a favor if we made it easier to distinguish references to our language from references to schema languages in or for XML in general. The name "XML Schema" has also given the Schema WG, and the W3C in general, a reputation for arrogance; since the name seems to convey the idea that we believe there is only one XML schema language worth talking about, namely "the" XML Schema language. A number of people otherwise well disposed towards W3C (although not particularly well disposed to the XML Schema WG, being no particular fans of our work) have publicly and privately expressed irritation at the name "XML Schema" and many refuse to use it; the alternative soubriquets they have bestowed on the language vary, but "the W3C XML Schema [or schema] language", abbreviated WXS, is not uncommon. I think we would do well to listen to the complaint, since it seems well founded. So I propose that we change our usage to give our language a name which is not quite so readily confused with generic references to XML schema languages, and adopt the new name in 1.1. 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. Other names and acronyms or initialisms are also possible; it is less important to me that we use a particular name or short form than that we avoid using what sounds like a common noun phrase as a name or short form. (The acid reception in some quarters to the CSS spec called simply "Selectors" is a good example of the reaction to our spec which I would like to begin to change. It could be elevated to a general rule: if you do not wish to come across as hopelessly arrogant, avoid capitalizing a common noun phrase describing your spec and giving your language that name.) One alternative to "XML Schema Definition Language" mentioned when we discussed this topic in New Orleans was "XML Schema Language"; unfortunately, I think I heard the other day that the initialism "XSL" is spoken for. Note that the issue I'm raising applies equally to Structures and Datatypes, but I don't expect separate discussion to be needed so I am not opening a separate issue for tracking this question in the context of Datatypes.
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
(In reply to comment #1) > FWIW: I'm a little more in favor of: > > Title: W3C XML Schema Definition Language > Still, I wouldn't particularly object to: > > Title: W3C XML Schema Definition Language(XSD) All well and good, for the XML language used to define these schemas. But we expect to see "born binary" schemas that are not attached to a particular defining document. Are we not drifting toward ignoring the schemas themselves? What do we call *them*? "W3C XML Schemas ("XS)"?
I think the proposals are OK with respect to born binary. My suggested title refers to a schema definition language. I think that can be broadly interpreted as covering both the transfer syntax and also the more abstract specification of a schema (which you refer to as born binary, though I note that our specification really just provides abstractions, not any particular binary, hex, octal, etc. representation.) Anyway, I'm usually sensitive to overlooking the components/"binary" side of things, and my antennae aren't twitching on this particular one. Noah
A proposal to change the name of the spec and the name of the language it defines was adopted by the WG on 11 May. A summary may be found on the IG list archive (member-only link) at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2007May/0002.html Accordingly, I'm changing the keyword for this issue from needsDrafting to decided.
The proposal adopted by the Working Group has now been integrated into the status quo documents on the server; accordingly, I'm changing the status to 'RESOLVED'.