No subject

the definition of “database”), having a single-value field munged to
contain multiple values is a bad smell. It is a regression in
normalisation, making it more difficult to address individual values,
and blurring the definition of the field.

If we're going to have multiple values in a field, we should have a
field explicitly defined that way and with a standard interface to
getting at the individual values.

> For the sake of backward compatibility, I'd prefer adding an
> "additional_authors" property rather than changing the semantics and
> parsing of the current one.

+1 for this. It leaves the concept of “who is the (singular) author
of this revision” intact, for whatever purposes existing or future
code may need that concept.

-- 
 \     “If I had known what it would be like to have it all... I might |
  `\     have been willing to settle for less.” —Jane Wagner, via Lily |
_o__)                                                           Tomlin |
Ben Finney