Partial custom fields design document

[Gervase Markham]

Harri Vartiainen wrote:
> There's "semi-official" term for nit-picking features to death, analysis 
> paralysis.

I'd say that's a bit unfair. A couple of weeks ago, someone said "Look, 
we really need to sort out custom fields." A consensus was established 
that this was a good idea, and a week ago a design document was posted. 
It's already had some review, and the large issues are being identified 
by those most able to identify them (e.g. I mentioned l10n, others have 
raised schema queries, and so on.)

I don't think we're doing too badly.

Gerv