Really awesome set of constructive comments. I just want to respond to
one, particularly relevant to my use case.

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:13 PM, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:


> 5 Why an atomic datatype?
> Implicitly, the document seems to take for granted that information in
> all of these forms should be representable in what XSD refers to as a
> simple type.  But why?

Because the expected domain for this spec is, at least in my strong
view, not limited to XML documents. For my use case (bibliographic
reference and citation formatting),we have a need to be able to
represent these sorts of data in RDF (including it's various
serialization formats), as well as JSON.