For my experience in group 2, the Feasibility Study was a well defined schema. It provided me with many options, while also pushing me towards a clear and universally understood skeleton. That flexibility focus is well appreciated, and our schema is definitely appropriate for the rhetorical situation. I say this because while it is very loose, our focus on summery writing and have a well defined outline (table of contents) creates presentation. It is very digestible writing because it is broken down in so many different ways.
I did find the schema constraining at times. Specifically I feel that we need to add the ability to have multiple “fsb_hlght”. I wanted to include different sections and was unable too because of the constraints of the genre. The schema on the other hand provided me with a very clear and straight forward skeleton. The ability to have any number of pages, and having many different types of pages was surprisingly guiding. I was worried that having so many choices would defeat the purpose of the skeleton / schema, but I did not experience that.
In terms of how we can improve the schema, I want to add a title attribute to different elements containing paragraphs. I found myself doing this during the paragraph itself and think it can be defined well within the actual element. For example under the <req> element I found myself writing the title followed by a colon.
