Randall Britten wrote:
> Don't you think we should put a test in somewhere for this? (Perhaps a
> manual test for it is already in Litmus?).
>
It is already in Litmus, although we could probably do automated testing
of PCEnv too (it requires running Javascript as part of the tests, but
Mozil
> > Therefore, I think that we need to restrict it down to something like
> > (in regular expression syntax):
> >
> > (\-|)[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+|)(E(-|)[0-9]+|e(-|)[0-9]+|)
> >
> > In other words:
> > An optional - , followed by 1 or more digits from 0 to 9, followed by
> > an optional decimal poin
> At the break-away session on the versioning strategy for CellML (which
> followed the Auckland CellML meeting today) we discussed the future of
> how we would version CellML, including whether we would put all elements
> for the next version of CellML in a completely different namespace, or
> onl
> Otherwise, Matt wrote:
>
> > ... You might want to scan a document to see what
> > "versions" the model conforms up to, but one of the nice things about
> > pushing these new elements/attributes into new namespaces is that you
> > can still treat a model as say 1.1 even if it contains 1.2 element
Alan Garny wrote:
>>> Therefore, I think that we need to restrict it down to something like
>>> (in regular expression syntax):
>>>
>>> (\-|)[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+|)(E(-|)[0-9]+|e(-|)[0-9]+|)
>>>
>>> In other words:
>>> An optional - , followed by 1 or more digits from 0 to 9, followed by
>>> an opt
Matt Halstead wrote:
>> Otherwise, Matt wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ... You might want to scan a document to see what
>>> "versions" the model conforms up to, but one of the nice things about
>>> pushing these new elements/attributes into new namespaces is that you
>>> can still treat a model as say 1.1
Alan Garny wrote:
>> At the break-away session on the versioning strategy for CellML (which
>> followed the Auckland CellML meeting today) we discussed the future of
>> how we would version CellML, including whether we would put all elements
>> for the next version of CellML in a completely differe
Andrew Miller wrote:
> Alan Garny wrote:
Therefore, I think that we need to restrict it down to something like
(in regular expression syntax):
(\-|)[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+|)(E(-|)[0-9]+|e(-|)[0-9]+|)
In other words:
An optional - , followed by 1 or more digits from
> Andrew Miller wrote:
> > Alan Garny wrote:
> Therefore, I think that we need to restrict it down to something like
> (in regular expression syntax):
>
> (\-|)[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+|)(E(-|)[0-9]+|e(-|)[0-9]+|)
>
> In other words:
> An optional - , followed by 1 or
So something like (assuming my use of the syntax is correct):
(\+|\-|)[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+|)((E|e)(\+|\-|)[0-9]+)
Note that I have also 'simplified' the exponent part.
>>> I don't think the exponent should be mandatory, however, as this would
>>> break the majority of model
>> - At the moment, CellML doesn't explicitly support the rem element
>> (remainder function in MathML), even though CellML does allow its use (at
>> the risk of ending in a situation where a model may work fine in a given
>> CellML tool -- that supports the rem element --, but not in a nother -- t
11 matches
Mail list logo
