Or would it be better – if a consens is difficult – to wait until a general resolution for the problem “one key with more than one value” has come up?
Lukas Sommer 2014-11-29 5:03 GMT+00:00 Brian Quinion <openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk>: > On 29 Nov 2014 00:26, "Lukas Sommer" <sommer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Okay. I’ll try a summary: > > > > We have the choise between two systems: > > > > – semicolon system > > > > – alt_name_1 system > > I added support for alt_name_1 because this kept coming up and people were > actively abusing alt_name:1 because it happened to work (the :1 actually > ends up interpreted as a language and while this could be fixed the > combination of language and array using the same syntax adds a lot of > complexity and confusion). > > ; is just a bad way of doing it without the ability to escape ; and > universal editor support (which at this point is probably impossible). It > also makes storage much more complex since it breaks key=>value pairing. > I'd say it was a bad idea and just about anything is better. > > alt_name[1] that colin suggested is interesting and potentially > unambiguous. It also has the advantage of making sense to a coder and not > requiring special support in editors for magic escape characters. > > -- > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
