> Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that nothing in the text of the > CellML 1.1 specification says that reactions will or will not be > deprecated in any future version of CellML, and therefore there is no > need for an erratum to CellML 1.1 (and indeed, such an erratum would be > inappropriate).
exactly, and as a core element with an entire top level section of the 1.0 and 1.1 specifications devoted to it and with no annotation to state that it is not going to be around much longer it is reasonable to expect that the reaction element will remain in the next version of the specification. To have the reaction element go from a significant core element in 1.0 and 1.1 to obsolete in 1.1.1 with no formal deprecation step just seems wrong to me - maybe I'm the only one that sees any problems here? While the reaction element is obviously one that we want to get rid of, what kind of precedence are we setting for the evolution of CellML by simply deleting it with nothing more formal than saying its about time we tidied up that mess? Andre. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
