Ben Kovitz scripsit:
> 1. Would it be a bad idea if we used RFC3236 (The
> application/xhtml+xml Media Type) as a model for the document w
> write? I'm hoping that we don't need to explain the full
> semantics of SBML in the RFC, since there are already some
> weighty papers that do that (referenced above). At only 8 pages,
> RFC3236 seems like a model of simplicity and clarity that we
> would like to emulate. Or is it possible to get even simpler?
> Some of the docs I found for XML MIME media types seemed to do
> little more than list the name of the type and who submitted it.
The important point is that RFCs are rock-stable; they can be updated
or replaced by other RFCs, but not changed in themselves. Any documents
they make normative reference to have to be similarly stable.
Note that you don't have to write an RFC in full formality to do the
job here, since you are using an existing top-level type.
> 2. We are thinking of including required parameters of "level"
> and "version". Anything to watch out for here? Is this a wrong
> idea? SBML has multiple levels to enable different simulation
> tools to interoperate at different levels of complexity and
> sophistication. Each level can come in different versions. More
> levels are planned.
If these already exist in the XML, then there is no need to make them
required parameters. If they don't exist in the XML, I suggest you
make them exist there.
--
First known example of political correctness: John Cowan
"After Nurhachi had united all the other http://www.reutershealth.com
Jurchen tribes under the leadership of the http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Manchus, his successor Abahai (1592-1643) jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
issued an order that the name Jurchen should --S. Robert Ramsey,
be banned, and from then on, they were all _The Languages of China_
to be called Manchus."
|
