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
schema title.

Ralph

> -----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.
>   http://www.indexdata.dk/pipermail/ex-plain/2003-November/000760.html
>   http://www.indexdata.dk/pipermail/ex-plain/2003-November/000761.html
>   http://www.indexdata.dk/pipermail/ex-plain/2003-November/000762.html
>
> Rob:  Double check documentation, change dates and send to Ray.
>
> Thanks :)
>
> Rob
>
> --
>       ,'/:.          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
>