Randall Britten wrote: > Is there a way we could use some kind of variable substitution for the term > "CellML file"/"CellML document"?
I think it would actually be much better for the community to decide one way or the other fairly soon - and I was happy enough with Andrew's definition/explanation. While I'm sure we could arrange some kind of variable substitution or entity solution such as Dave suggests, this would only work on the specifications - not any email discussions, meeting minutes, wiki pages, etc, which will severely confuse any community browsers. So I propose that unless anyone else has strong feelings on the issue we continue with 'CellML File' for now and then if in the future we decide to change to something else then it should be changed everywhere. Andre. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cellml-discussion- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Miller >> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2007 9:14 a.m. >> To: For those interested in contributing to the development of CellML. >> Subject: Re: [cellml-discussion] specification draft and docbook >> >> 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 >> [email protected] >> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion > > _______________________________________________ > 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
