The more this is explained, the more it sounds like this could all be achieved with some additions to the errata for the CellML 1.1 specification. What benefit is gained by making a 1.1.1 version?
> 1.1.1 doesn't describe the reaction element, but 1.1 does, and 1.1.1 and > 1.1 are in the same namespace. If software which has supported reactions > per the CellML 1.1 specification sees the reaction element, it will > follow the 1.1 specification (indeed, we probably would benefit from an > implementation guide which encourages tool developers to support more > than one version of CellML if possible. How many versions back they want > to support is up to them). > > Model authors on the other hand will be strongly encouraged to use > CellML 1.1.1. > > Best regards, > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > cellml-discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion -- David Nickerson, PhD Research Fellow Division of Bioengineering Faculty of Engineering National University of Singapore Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
