I'm agreeing with Flyk here, primarily in the light of how we seem to be asking questions at the moment. A good chunk of the better questions have lists of requirements to be met, and the answers tend to be in the form of which requirements have been met, and personal experience.
It seems to make more sense, to me, to have one quality answer per recommendation (and of course, if someone can post more answers, and keep them detailed, organised and specific). There is clearly room for abuse - maybe someone trying to be clever and posting 5-6 one liners. In this situation though, they would/should need to be distinct enough to split up rather than post as one answer
I'd also add that we're voting on the quality of a solution, and unlike many of the other sites, like SU or SF, a solution here is not a process using a piece of software but the software itself. As such, keeping them seperate lets good (or at least popular) solutions rise to the top. I'm not a firm believer in the FGTW theory, simply cause I've subverted it with quality answers far too often.
This is an example where I chose a single answer about two different software packages, since they were not terribly distinctive in terms of the features asked, while here I recommended two different ways to perform a task, distinctive enough that they needed their own answers
We have, and need to make it hard for questions to have listy answers. Its hard for someone to say "Oh, this tool is what I'd wholeheartedly recommend and this". I personally find that a quality, multi-answer question is likely to be rare.
On the other hand, there's always exceptions if its a class of software, with broadly similar characteristics - (this seems to be a nice edge case) having them as one answer makes sense. I wouldn't encourage multiple answers explicitly, but I'd say its a better way to handle knowing more than one great tool for a specific task.
