David Nickerson wrote: >> From what I gather, publicity. We need some way to direct people's >> attention to our intention to deprecate reaction elements. >> > > sure - but its still not clear to me if 1.1.1 is making clear our > intention to deprecate reaction elements or if it is making reaction > elements invalid in a 1.1.1 version model? >
I think that both are true: 1) Reaction elements would be invalid in the 1.1.1 specification I proposed. 2) Versions of CellML earlier than 1.1.1 would be deprecated by virtue of the fact that they are no longer the latest version of CellML, and therefore reaction elements are deprecated. I think that people who look at CellML at present are not sufficiently discouraged from using reaction elements, and I agree that a new version is reasonable to publicise what we as a community think is the proper direction for CellML. Best regards, Andrew > If it is the former, then I guess the publicity side of things makes a > new version reasonable. > _______________________________________________ > cellml-discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion > _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
