In the draft, you don't need

"start = itsGlobal | itsLocal

itsGlobal = element documentRules { ns*, documentRule+ }"

because the schemas should be fragment to be included into other
schemas, and so do not need entry points. Only a wrapper schema
for an external rules file needs an entry point.

Don't forget, by the way, that the annotation should
be put in the <desc> element in the ODD nicely

(In reply to comment #1)
> In the draft, you don't need
> 
> "start = itsGlobal | itsLocal
> 
> itsGlobal = element documentRules { ns*, documentRule+ }"
> 
> because the schemas should be fragment to be included into other
> schemas, and so do not need entry points. Only a wrapper schema
> for an external rules file needs an entry point.
> 
> Don't forget, by the way, that the annotation should
> be put in the <desc> element in the ODD nicely
> 

My idea was to split also the position of the various schema parts, e.g. translateLocal and translateGlobal would be in the section on translatability, dirLocal / dirGlobal in the "dir" section, the definition of its:rules (?) and its:rule in the section on global rules, etc. In that way, we would not need the annotations any more. What do you / other think?

 > My idea was to split also the position of the various schema parts, e.g.
 > translateLocal and translateGlobal would be in the section on translatability,
 > dirLocal / dirGlobal in the "dir" section, the definition of its:rules (?) and
 > its:rule in the section on global rules, etc. In that way, we would not need
 > the annotations any more.

The annotations appearing in the schema are good, though;
they show up in some editors (like oXygen) when you write

No need to track schema redesign as an issue, since the massive changes due to the proposals at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0301.html have been discussed, and - where agreed upon - implemented.

Closed, no further action necessary.