I'm happy with the schema proposal.
I notice that you have a "title" subelement. That solves my need for a
longer name for sets too. But, why a subelement and not an attribute? The
only good argument I can imagine for making it an element is that you
anticipate it having subelements at some point and I don't see that for a
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 6:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: 1.1 Release Date
> What date shall we shoot for, so I can update the date in the
> docs before
> sending them to Ray?
> Things that need to happen:
> Matthew: We need the new schemas and WSDL, preferably ASAP
> so that people
> can try them out in their toolkits before they go live, to prevent the
> issues of 1.0
> Everyone: Please read over my Zeerex changes proposal to
> accomodate 1.1.
> Even a 'Yes, I agree' is fine.
> Rob: Double check documentation, change dates and send to Ray.
> Thanks :)
> ,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
> ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
> ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> ,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
> I L L U M I N A T I