Re: [TrackerItem 42]New: CellML1.1.1specification

David Nickerson wrote:
>> From what I gather, publicity. We need some way to direct people's
>> attention to our intention to deprecate reaction elements.
>>     
>
> sure - but its still not clear to me if 1.1.1 is making clear our 
> intention to deprecate reaction elements or if it is making reaction 
> elements invalid in a 1.1.1 version model?
>   

I think that both are true:
1) Reaction elements would be invalid in the 1.1.1 specification I proposed.
2) Versions of CellML earlier than 1.1.1 would be deprecated by virtue 
of the fact that they are no longer the latest version of CellML, and 
therefore reaction elements are deprecated.

I think that people who look at CellML at present are not sufficiently 
discouraged from using reaction elements, and I agree that a new version 
is reasonable to publicise what we as a community think is the proper 
direction for CellML.

Best regards,
Andrew

> If it is the former, then I guess the publicity side of things makes a 
> new version reasonable.
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion-+N4dcC6UsuQdnm+yROfE0A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
>