<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/05/2014 18:22, fly wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5374E9BF.50402@googlemail.com" type="cite">
<blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Pretty much everyone has agreed that the type=* is being abused and that
chaining sport=boules;boules=petanque is cleaner so I'm going to correct
the 718 occurrences of sport=boules;type=petanque into
sport=boules;boules=petanque.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">This would be an automatic edit and at least should be open for
discussion for more than some days.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes - I'll let it cool down for a while.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5374E9BF.50402@googlemail.com" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I might also do it for sport=boules;type=bocce which would become
sport=boules;boules=bocce.
There are 1093 occurrences of sport=boules;type=* :
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/3oF">http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/3oF</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Well then why not use boules:type ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
From messages here, on talk and on talk-fr, there seem to be a
consensus about namespace chaining such as
sport=boules;boules=bocce. No one has offered
sport=boules;boules:type=bocce - maybe because the boules namespace
most probably won't expand into complexity that justifies subkeys.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>