R10 in the naming and design rules document says: [R 10] The name of a complex type based on an object class must be the name of the object class, with the separators removed and with the "Details" suffix replaced with "Type" (example: The Party. Details object class becomes the PartyType complex type). So the schemas are wrong to use FooDetailsType as a complex type name -- it should be FooType (another hard-won rule). The reason for the consensus around FooType was to distinguish it from a Foo element. The SC was aware the types and elements inhabit separate name spaces (not namespaces ;-) but the consensus was that the "Type" suffix would make things more understandable for users. Dave's rule 3 will be addressed in the LCSC call this morning. So to Gunther's point we will soon (hopefully) be almost implementing Dave's rule 1, and completely implementing Dave's rule 3. (rule 2 is solely a UML mapping rule so it has no bearing on our schemas).