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: ak.miller at auckland.ac.nz (Andrew Miller)
  • Subject: [cellml-discussion] Fwd: Re: Review solicited for application/cellml-1.0+xml andapplication/cellml-1.1+xml
  • Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:07:44 +1200


----- Forwarded message from Mark Baker <distobj at acm.org> -----
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:06:22 -0400
From: Mark Baker <distobj at acm.org>
Reply-To: Mark Baker <distobj at acm.org>
Subject: Re: Review solicited for application/cellml-1.0+xml
andapplication/cellml-1.1+xml
To: Larry Masinter <LMM at acm.org>

On 4/10/06, Larry Masinter <LMM at acm.org> wrote:
> 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.

FWIW, I think it's the practice of introducing incompatible changes
which doesn't scale, but that does seem to be what CellML has done,
and may continue to do (as Andrew notes).

It sounds a bit like the RSS situation, where "supporting RSS"
necessarily means supporting several specifications which are only
loosely compatible.

Will "supporting CellML" mean supporting all versions of CellML? It
sounds like it might be, based on Andrew's answers to your questions.
In that case, I agree that a single media type is appropriate.

Mark.
--
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca


----- End forwarded message -----




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page