nickerso / cellml-spec-sphinx-test Goto Github PK

This phrase is used more than once, but isn't actually defined by the Namespaces in XML specification.

Is it an older version that should be deleted? Or is there some subtlety I'm missing?

Currently terminology.rst says:
CellML Metadata Namespace
The namespace \http://www.cellml.org/metadata/1.0#
This will be outdated if the new version is ever approved :) We should possibly do something similar to the approach for the main CellML Namespace, and allow for multiple versions.

Sometimes it's shown in a code style, sometimes as normal text, e.g.

• local name component
• local name math

Which is preferred?

We may or may not want to include each of these somewhere.

• The definitions of quantitative & qualitative models, conformance levels, and the term "for interoperability"
• 2.4.3 bullet 3 (extension elements cannot contain content in the CellML namespace)
• 2.5.2 (but this rule conflicts with the namespaces in XML recommendation, so should be dropped)
• 3.4.5.4 bullet 2 (each map_components element must declare a unique pair of components to connect)
• 4.2.1 "CellML processing software must interpret MathML elements according to the semantics defined in the MathML 2.0 Recommendation."
• 4.2.3 (the CellML subset of MathML)
• 5.5.2 (Units associated with the MathML constants elements)
• 6.4.3.2 bullet 1 (I think the normative spec makes all relationships hierarchical)
• Section 7 (reactions)

Am I going mad, or are the two clauses in this definition equivalent?

The encapsulation digraph MUST NOT contain any loops, and MUST NOT
contain any cycles in the underlying graph (that is, it must be a tree).

To be precise, Sphinx gives you this warning:

checking consistency... /home/jonc/work/git_repos/cellml/cellml-spec-sphinx-test/source/abstract.rst:: WARNING: document isn't included in any toctree

The abstract is included by index.rst, so the text does appear; I just don't know how to avoid the warning appearing.

There's text like "as described in ?" scattered all over the place, even in the .rst source, so I can't easily find where these should point to and fix them. Is there an automated way of extracting the info from Andrew's docbook?