In the long run, this is indeed true.  In the short term, however, this is not 
a WG project and we are not using WG 'due process' - just public discussion 
leading to (hopefully) a rough consensus on a specification.  This is indeed 
an experimental specification, but it is a specification we hope to complete 
by the end of June, _complete with namespaces_.  
It would be nice if some of this proposal survives as part of an eventual W3C 
specification, but it may well not.  I'm focused on producing a workable 
specification, not contemplating its eventual demise. For a discussion 
XSchema/W3C WG issues, see 
http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/9805/0454.html .
Also:
>Also;  why would XML schemas have a different prefix than their XML
>documented counterparts -- XML Schemas will become part of the CORE
>specification, yes?
Someday they may, but we do need something for now.  Their "XML-documented 
counterparts" use <! syntax, not instance syntax, so they didn't need another 
prefix.
John Cowan writes:
JC>Thus it is not necessary to standardize a prefix, although 
JC>it certainly would be reasonable to recommend one.
Precisely.  So may we recommend XSC?
Simon St.Laurent
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies