Re: XML basics Re: LC model draft draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt

I am not fully caught up - but just so that Joel and Tom dont see this
as a ping-pong between them:

On Mon, 2006-30-10 at 07:24 -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Okay.  We need to clarify section 4 a bit on the role of the schema.
> 
> On the question of extension, the only way the schema can be extended 
> is by IETF action.  An IETF working group can write a document that 
> updates this schema, and can declare that new definitions use the new schema.
> 
>
> As for which version of XML Schema, I used the reference I was 
> provided.  If there is a better reference, I am happy to use that.
> 
> However, the document makes no sense if the schema is not with the 
> document.  Having it somewhere else just won't work.  

Although Tom makes good argument that the schema will evolve, I cant see
it outside the model. 
In regards to the FEO and FEPO: I have in the past suggested that they
be a separate (infact i wrote a draft isolating them). Is this a viable
resolution?

> Having it in an 
> appendix is workable.  I am still waiting to hear from others on the 
> list as to whic of the schema, the FE Object definition, and the 
> example definition they would prefer to see in an appendix.

IMO, seems just fine to leave it where it is in s4 and move out FEO.
Otoh, I dont wanna add any more latency if there is strong feeling that
the FEO belongs in the model.

The other issue i saw brought up by Tom was on the terminology used
for ForCES elements and attributes which are syntactically different
from standard xml attributes and elements: Could we use a "LFB" or
"ForCES" prefix? eg ForCESAttribute as opposed to just Attributes?
I wasnt sure if there was some agreement reached in the discussion.

cheers,
jamal

PS:- I havent read fully through the model draft, but i do have some
comments which i hope to post on.