Originally raised in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2006Aug/0016.html by
Kohsuke Kawaguchi <Kohsuke.Kawaguchi@Sun.COM>

- In my opinion, the spec would have been easier to read if it
   followed the same approach that the XPath spec took.

   For example, I failed to find any reference to what it really means
   to use the "baseType::" axis. I just had to assume that it's a
   traversal through the {base type definition} of the complex type and
   simple type schema components.

   To follow the XPath spec approach means saying something like this
   instead:

     The <tt>baseType</tt> axis contains the {base type definition} of
     the context node if the context node is a simple/complex
     type. Otherwise empty.

   The node test (by name) could be then split into its own part,
   eliminating any need to duplicate [target namespace] and [name]
   everywhere, as the current SCD spec do.