On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Tremblay wrote:
> I've suggested a shoulder=yes/no tag. Somebody came out with a complex
> structure (probably valid) for shoulders. Does it really have to be that
> complicated? I don't know. You, speclists, know better than me.
The issue is that there
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Daniel Tremblay wrote:
> I've suggested a shoulder=yes/no tag. Somebody came out with a complex
> structure (probably valid) for shoulders. Does it really have to be that
> complicated? I don't know. You, speclists, know better than me.
>
> What are the objectiv
On 31/07/2010, at 11:07 AM, John Smith wrote:
> Maybe we should stop using words for key pair values and just come up
> with a database that issues ID numbers, half the problems with the
> current scheme is due to people treating enumerated key pairs in the
> same way they are used to using english
First, I want to add some more arguments to the list:
@ Cons "Defined groupings approach"
- sometimes meanings will be read into a key that originally weren't
there(1), this cannot happen with a generic type key
@ Pros "All in one approach"
- it's easier to find the correct tag if it *does* use t
On 31 July 2010 10:39, Stephen Hope wrote:
> Ignoring for the moment the whole "how do we change it" thing brought
> up by the emergency tags, there seems to be a whole underlying issue
> that's worth looking at.
The how is fairly simple, no one seems to have disagreed with that,
the why and the
