Review solicited for application/cellml-1.0+xml andapplication/cellml-1.1+xml

[Mark Baker]

On 4/10/06, Larry Masinter <LMM at acm.org> wrote:
> The approach of registering a new media type every time there's an
> incompatible change isn't consistent with current practice, and
> isn't particularly scalable, so I'm uncomfortable setting a precedent
> that every version of a format should get a different type.

FWIW, I think it's the practice of introducing incompatible changes
which doesn't scale, but that does seem to be what CellML has done,
and may continue to do (as Andrew notes).

It sounds a bit like the RSS situation, where "supporting RSS"
necessarily means supporting several specifications which are only
loosely compatible.

Will "supporting CellML" mean supporting all versions of CellML?  It
sounds like it might be, based on Andrew's answers to your questions. 
In that case, I agree that a single media type is appropriate.

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca