David Nickerson wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I have just starting looking at using git and checking your current 
> draft of the specification. I have made a few changes and attach the 
> patch (generated with git diff -p > andre.patch). Not really sure the 
> best way to do things in order to share changes - I guess if there are 
> going to be many its worth signing up at the same place hosting your 
> draft? but then I'll probably not have to much time to devote to this...
It did prove very easy to set up the repository, however. If it is too 
hard I guess we need to try to arrange our own CellML-specific hosting.

>
> Anyway, about the only significant change I made was to turn all the 
> sect1 and sect2's into section's - while this is probably more a 
> personal preference, it seems to be a widely used one.
I have now pushed that change to my branch 
(643b9d1260e9a64f6a0a20f79d6c88665e1dcc7a in git).

> Hardcoding section levels just seems a bad thing to be doing to me, 
> especially when you're using XInclude to include multiple documents 
> into a single document....although maybe you are trying to force those 
> sections to a specific depth regardless of where they are imported into?
>
> And then a couple of other things I changed that we can maybe discuss 
> more on cellml-discussion. You are using 'CellML File' as the base 
> unit whereas I generally think of them as documents - especially in 
> the context of generated data which may never exist in an actual file. 
> Again, just my preference :)
I created a branch normative-andre to track what your current opinion of 
the specification should be (of course, things like 'Change File to 
Document' won't keep up with new instances where 'CellML File' is 
added). This was pushed to my public repository on the normative-andre 
branch as "92b7b3a7515c7aae22f42b417296ad263fee9433".

Best regards,
Andrew

_______________________________________________
cellml-discussion mailing list
cellml-discussion@cellml.org
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion

Reply via email to