On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:53:54 +0100 Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hugh Barnes wrote: > > It's a shame. You have to admit it's a useful device and would > > reduce duplication of work (creation and maintenance) and storage > > significantly. > > Sure but it's not something that should be done on the API level. The > API is intended as an as-simple-as-possible storage engine. How you > interpret data coming out of the API is your (the client's) choice. > Right. I don't think I suggested the API, just client apps (and community expectation, I guess). > > I think that in the long run, all tools should be able to, on a > fundamental level, accept a relation everywhere they would expect a > way, and then substitute the relation's members. That's right. > Which would apply > recursively and thus neatly solve your problem. Why would it necessarily apply recursively? > I'm not sure there is a need to explicitly tag the fact that > something is a "parent" or "child" relation in your case. > To provide clear guidance for clients, because as you said — and I think is right, though I can't currently think of examples — this inheritance is not always desirable. Also, component=yes prevents someone deleting something that looks useless on its own. Cheers _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
