On 30.12.19 14:10, Jussi Laakkonen wrote:
Yes, property name is not required. I think I remember leaving this
for a reason: to get input on this matter. The property name could be
indeed used to make processing of the content more straightforward, but
I wasn't really sure about naming. Would plain "Properties" be enough?
"Properties" is probably the best name for it. We call it so in the
documentation already, e.g. service-api.txt. This would be consistent
and as you say, we can simplify the parser.