[OSM-talk] Validator tags

[sylvain letuffe]

> 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 liste at letuffe.org
qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org