I have one comment:

* Andrew Miller <ak.mil...@auckland.ac.nz> [2012-07-03 00:07] writes:
>   2. Should CellML 1.2 be an incremental change over CellML 1.1, with 
> another version planned shortly after, or should it try to incorporate a 
> wider set of changes? (target: 9:05 - 9:25)

This strikes me as being the wrong question.  Instead I would ask, "What 
do we want to accomplish with CellML that cannot be accomplished with 
1.1?"  Then you look at the list of things you came up with, and classify 
each into 'would be a small change' vs. 'would be a large change'.  Then, 
finally, you look at the list of small changes and decide whether it's 
worth it to have a release with just those changes vs. the whole list.  I 
would think the MathML 3.0 question would fall out of this discussion, 
too, rather than having to be a separate agenda item.

cellml-discussion mailing list

Reply via email to