> There is big difference - you concept missing any safe point. You have to
> specify same information more times.
Not necessarily, and if so maybe twice. I'm ok to recognize that it is a
difference between both approaches, and an inconvenient of the one I'm
proposing. There also see inconvenients to the other design as well, so
there will not be any perfect solution, IMO. That is the point of
discussing.
> I am sorry, this discussion is in cycle - there is no sense to continue.
If the only open option is to agree with your initial design, then
obviously this is not a path for reaching a consensus.
Could you put your ideal (final) design proposition on the wiki page? That
would avoid repeating the same cyclic arguments, they would be written
only once...
--
Fabien.
