<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
As I already wrote before in this thread, lutz already agreed with
and supported my proposal. <br>
My problem with the actual ref tag is that there are many ref tags
for other schemes and elements, but I don't know if this concern is
pointless or not.<br>
I would like to see this scheme more organized and not so ambiguous
data wise, but I don't know if that's technically better or if there
are actual problems with ref tag being "all over the place".<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Às 19:56 de 20/04/2020, Paul Allen
escreveu:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dOKd3cigxn6-teXUDpM-YUmTyP4azW-nbxAcoYc_qDHVBA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 16:47, António Madeira
<<a href="mailto:antoniomadeira@gmx.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">antoniomadeira@gmx.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> So, I would like to know what would be the technical
pros and cons regarding heritage:ref:operator=* vs
ref:operator=* , i.e. the database use, rendering,
consulting, exporting etc.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>AFAIK, only one map makes use of heritage*. So if you
can persuade lutz that</div>
<div>your scheme is a good one, it will be dealt with
accordingly.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- <br>
</div>
<div>Paul</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>