Tim posted a comment suggesting that XSD 1.0 2nd edition could use low priority wildcards
Firstly, he characterizes this as "Noah's solution". I'm not sure that Noah invented this nor is he the first person to start evangelizing it. Michael Sperberq-McQueen mentioned this solution to me last November and I heard it refered to in that time frame as "Michael's" low priority wildcard proposal. I then evangelized it in December.
Secondly, I now think that low priority wildcards are not nearly sufficient for writing schemas that included distributed extensibility. The problem is mainly that a schema can have multiple namespaces, and there may be new items in an existing namespace. Low priority wildcards that use namespaces only do not take into account these differences. There needs to be a new way of slicing and dicing the set of qnames that are allowed, specifically "known" versus "unknown".
I wrote about this in Extensibility at the right level: a namespace isn't it.
Thirdly, I think that wildcards is the major Schema 1.1 deliverable. So why would branding this as a 2nd ed be so much easier to deploy than 1.1 if this is the bulk of the work? How does losing the other 1.1 "improvements" that are less in size/complexity than wildcards make it easier to adopt? I even think this should to be branded as Schema 2.0 because there isn't forwards compatibility. A Schema 1.0 validator that gets a schema with schema 1.1 wildcard and a document that uses the schema 1.1 wildcard won't do the forwards compatible behaviour. It will not allow valid schema 1.1 documents.
I *really* like the idea of fixing extensibility/versioning in schema >1.0 1st ed and doing something in a fast way, but I don't think it's feasible or the right thing.
