More custom field revisions

[Gervase Markham]

Sean McAfee wrote:
> So, is there any way to make everybody happy?  Well, here are some
> thoughts.
> 
> One approach, then,
> might be to keep my proposal mostly intact, but to additionally give
> global custom fields the semantics suggested by shared-field proponents,
> including the unique alphanumeric identifier...
 >
> Another approach might be to flag each product as "open" or "closed"...
> 
> A generalization of the previous approach would be to allow products to
> be grouped together... 
> 
> Approaching from the opposite direction, perhaps custom fields could
> be arranged into named groups...

Your four paragraphs in this mail each add an extra bit of complexity to 
the implementation; I believe my suggestion, by making it more general 
and flexible, actually simplifies the use and implementation.


To summarise, then, there are a few things I really feel I need to 
insist on :-):

- That it be possible to make a custom field apply, to 1, 2, .... N 
products.

- That the custom field have an alphanumeric internal name, defined at 
creation time, which is unique to it and is used in form field names and 
anywhere else a unique identifier is required. This would not be the 
display name (although it could be a default for it.)

- The separation of content from presentation by moving the definition 
of how and where the fields are displayed to the templates.

Gerv