> I guess the patch could be expanded to not expect a name for > "internal:noname=yes" The current proposal is "internal:name=noname" so we can also have "internal:name=noname_sign" when it's unsure the object as a name, but it is known that no sign gives this information and because both should be exclusive
And the patch is not needed as I have allready done it, and am allready using it on my renderer. > . Alternativly you could exclude the noname issue > from the internal:-namespace and say "ok, we don't need a note there, we > have a specialized tag for that". Obviously I would prefer the later... I don't get you point here, how could I say with tags : "ok, we don't need a note there, we have a specialized tag for that" if you propose to exclude noname from internal namespace ? > If your validator would respect the tags in the validate:-namespace that > would be very cool. Why create a "validate:" additionnal namespace if every things fit in the "internal:" namespace ? ( or alternatively, the opposite ) In wich case, this is just a matter of namming and for you or me to rework your/my patch... do you have a coin ? -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
