CZ-0001 through CZ-0012 in the Part1 FPDAM proposed disposition documents

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)]

I would like to reject these comments, since the use of union in the
current schemas minimizes the differences between transitional schemas
and strict schemas.

As an example, consider ST_TextBulletSize in the strict and transitional versions 
of dml-main.xsd.  In the current approach, a "merged" schema would contain:

<when-strict>
  <xsd:simpleType name="ST_TextBulletSize">
    <xsd:union memberTypes="ST_TextBulletSizePercent"/>
  </xsd:simpleType>
</when-strict>
<when-transitional>
  <xsd:simpleType name="ST_TextBulletSize">
    <xsd:union memberTypes="ST_TextBulletSizePercent ST_TextBulletSizeDecimal"/>
  </xsd:simpleType>
</when-transitional>
...
<when-transitional>
  <xsd:simpleType name="ST_TextBulletSizeDecimal">
    <xsd:restriction base="ST_PercentageDecimal">
      <xsd:minInclusive value="25000"/>
      <xsd:maxInclusive value="400000"/>
    </xsd:restriction>
  </xsd:simpleType>
</when-transitional>

From such a merged schema, we can generate both a strict schema 
and a transitional schema.

However, if we do not use a union in the definition of ST_TextBulletSize, 
the differences between the two versions will be unnecessarily bigger 
than the fragment shown above and thus maintenance work will become
more difficult.

Note: Although strict schemas and transitional schemas use different
namespaces, it is certainly possible to create a single schema that
captures both versions.  We only have to use some mechanism for
namespace remaing (such as p:namespace-rename of XProc or
dsrl:element-map of DSRL).

Cheers,
Makoto