#144 "Should" must be "must" in 0-D compart. statement

[Michael Hucka]

Originally reported by Sven Sahle for SBML L2v4r1 sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5:

In those sections, the spec says that the id of a 0-D compartment "should" not appear in mathematical expressions. The word actually should be "must", not "should".

[Stefan Hoops]

I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.

[Frank Bergmann]

I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.

[Sarah Keating]

I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.

[Michael Hucka]

Although Sven did not vote himself, he reported the issue originally. Therefore, we can assume that he would agree with the proposed change. That makes this a 4-out-of-5 majority of SBML Editors. Per our standard procedure (http://sbml.org/Documents/SBML_Development_Process/SBML_Editors%27_process_for_handling_issue_reports ), I am changing the status to "Pending".

Further, since the Editors have already also indicated that they accept the proposed change, we can go ahead and add this to the list of errata for L2v4r1. I think we have to call this a change with possible conformance implications, so I'm changing the category appropriately too.

The status will be changed from "Pending" to "Closed" when we issue L2v4r2 and it includes a fix for this issue.

[Sven Sahle]

I am accepting this issue as valid.

[Sven Sahle]

I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.

[SourceForge Robot]

This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was
previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter
did not respond within 730 days (the time period specified by
the administrator of this Tracker).

[Lucian Smith]

Re-set to 'pending'. This *is* an l2v5 issue.

[Chris Myers]

I am accepting this issue as valid.

[Lucian Smith]

Fixed in SVN for L2v5, and will be part of the forthcoming release of that specification.