This topic came up for discussion in today's platform meeting (Alec
also joined us)
Here's where we seem to be:
We seem to have agreement that a 'title' attribute which would not be
localized (but would be indexed) is necessary
After that things get fuzzy, due mostly to i18n concerns. The big
place where this has impact is places in the UI where "displayName"
data appears - table column headers, detail view field labels, menus
and so forth. We also have a problem related to the ability to
switch locales because we currently store the localized version of
the strings in the displayName. There seem to be a lot of issues
left to tackle here and we aren't going to try to tackle them for
alpha2. Some of the possible solutions that we discussed included
1. ripping out displayName altogether and seeing what we actually needed
2. introducing a different attribute and placing that attribute only
on items whose names actually show through to the UI.
We are not going to try doing either of these for alpha2 but we will
need to tackle them for i18n reasons, if for no other. There's also
some uncertainty on the exact level of i18n functionality that we are
targetting for 0.7 and ultimately 1.0.
For alpha2, that leaves the introduction of a 'title' attribute on
ContentItem as the only active work item.
Does that sound accurate to people that were in the meeting?
Is there any additional comment? If there is not, I am going to
start looking at adding a 'title' attribute to ContentItem.
Ted
On Apr 18, 2006, at 12:24 PM, Brian Kirsch wrote:
>>> So is the rule to display the title in preference to the
displayName? It seems to me that the only time that displayName
is really that >>> useful is when the item being displayed is an
attribute name -- I can imagine localizing that data, I can't
imagine localizing data
>>> entered by the user. I guess you could have a displayName
that was "Untitled foobar", which might make some sense to
localize, >>> except that when display a summary view full of
untitled items, you' just see a pile of "Untitled foobar" rows.
I have always been a strong advocate of reworking the displayName.
However, perhaps we should have a brief meeting or IRC chat to
hammer out the specifics of the change. I want to make sure that
adding the addition attribute 'title' really does meet our
localiztion needs.
For example, in previous iterations of adding title with
displayName the title was going to be the localized field and
displayName the system field. Having displayName be the localized
field is fine I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page
and that we consider the edge cases for localization such as the
'Untitled Folder' example Ted gave.
--Brian
Brian Kirsch - Cosmo Developer / Chandler Internationalization
Engineer
Open Source Applications Foundation
543 Howard St. 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
http://www.osafoundation.org
Ted Leung wrote:
On Apr 17, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Katie Capps Parlante wrote:
Ted Leung wrote:
If you look at Bug 1745: <https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/
show_bug.cgi?id=1745>, you'll see that there's another issue
related to displayName / title, which is localization. I
think that the localization stuff points to a separate Title
attribute rather than displayName. I suppose that you could
even argue that the two names (title and displayName) are
reversed in their meanings if you have both of them - title
being the "system" name for the item and 'displayName' being
the text that is localized, indexed, and presented to the user.
Hi Ted,
I don't think your description above is exactly right. The way I
see it, a "two different attributes" proposal should look
something like this:
- Title
- typically data entered by the user (e.g. title of an event)
- not localized
- indexed, this is the attribute you want in end user searches
- Display Name
- system name
- typically created by parcels: blocks, events, schema items,
etc.
- localized (shows up in columns and other display elements)
- not indexed, or indexed separately
The motivator behind having one "displayName" or
"displayAttribute" was a requirement that *any* item should be
able to show up in a table and have some reasonable "display
name". I think we can find a way to meet this requirement some
other way -- the localization and index issues are clearly more
important requirements. Right now we have no requirement to
display blocks in tables, for example.
+1 for two different attributes btw.
I know Alec was working on a writeup on this topic as well.
Alec, I'd be curious to know if Katie's ideas match up with
yours? If this is going to get into alpha2, we are going to
need to come to agreement fairly soon.
Ted
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
----
Ted Leung Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
