More custom field revisions
gerv at mozilla.org
Wed Apr 30 07:59:22 UTC 2003
Sean McAfee wrote:
> So, is there any way to make everybody happy? Well, here are some
> 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
- 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.
More information about the developers