On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:17 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>> I'm looking at adding support for %foo arrbitrary tag syntax.
>>
>> Anyone got a problem with
>>     Foo:
>> and
>>     %foo
>> being alternative syntax means to express the same tag content?
>
> If it is possible, why not. I was just under the impression that the
> "%foo" stuff internally is semantically rather different from the  
> "Foo:"
> stuff. But from a plain user point of view, I would say "go for it".
>
>> Gonna be a pita to permit
>> 	Foo: value 1
>> 	Foo: value 2
>> but force only a single instance of
>> 	%foo
>> or mutually exclusive means to express the value of an arbitrary tag
>> and otherwise contort the meaning of "arbitrary" to conform with  
>> luser
>> expectations.
>>
>> What say ye?
>
> I personally would say, let's just do it.
> I at least see no major problem on the first spot...
>

Hehe, we agree. todo++. I will likely look at syntax for the 2-tuple  
of scripts and
the 3-tuple of triggers at the same time. Syntax is just strings ...

All metadata ends up as tag(s) in a Header ...

73 de Jeff