First login?
Lost password?
 
 
cellml-discussion AT lists.cellml.org 
CellML Discussion List

Text archives Help


[cellml-discussion] Fwd: RE: Review solicited for application/cellml-1.0+xml andapplication/cellml-1.1+xml


Chronological Thread 
  • From: matt.halstead at auckland.ac.nz (Matt Halstead)
  • Subject: [cellml-discussion] Fwd: RE: Review solicited for application/cellml-1.0+xml andapplication/cellml-1.1+xml
  • Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:35:23 +1200
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY !



On 11/04/2006, at 12:23 PM, Andrew Miller wrote:

>
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Larry Masinter <LMM at acm.org> -----
> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:14:08 -0700
> From: Larry Masinter <LMM at acm.org>
> Reply-To: Larry Masinter <LMM at acm.org>
> Subject: RE: Review solicited for application/cellml-1.0+xml
> andapplication/cellml-1.1+xml
> To: 'Andrew Miller' <ak.miller at auckland.ac.nz>, ietf-
> types at iana.org
>
>> While CellML versions are not substantially different from each
>> other in
>> terms of the XML element localNames, the changes between 1.0 and
>> 1.1(and
>> likely any future versions) will make backwards compatibility for
> impossible
>> for most, if not all, CellML processing tools. As such, a new
>> media type
> for each version is
>> justified. Similarly, the version parameter and the section on
>> determining
> the
>> version from the XML has been dropped. Both versions of the CellML
>> specification are now referenced as normative references.
>
> I went back and re-read the comments you got, and I think you may
> have interpreted them incorrectly. I think you were being advised
> to drop the version parameter, not to register two different
> media types.
>
> The way that you tell the versions apart is to look inside the
> documents themselves.
>
> The approach of registering a new media type every time there's an
> incompatible change isn't consistent with current practice, and
> isn't particularly scalable, so I'm uncomfortable setting a precedent
> that every version of a format should get a different type.
>
> Are you saying CellML 1.1 readers can't also read 1.0?
> Or that future CellML versions will also be incompatible?
> Is 1.0 deprecated in favor of 1.1, or do you intend to use
> both forever?
>
> Why not just register CellML 1.1 and recommend that people
> not use CellML 1.0, if 1.1 replaces 1.0?
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page