Wouter Huijnink wrote: > > - You migh want to consider using an 'XML' typed field > That would be a core extension, wouldn't it? I don't know whether that's a > smart thing to do for us.
No, XML fields exists already in 1.7 (even in 1.6). I'm not sure though that you won't have problems with it, because AFAIK hardly anyone is using it for anything. So, I'm not sure if it is recommendable, but it seems logical to use the XML-field for XML. > > - How about many many translations? I think generally, storing translations > > in > > one object is a bad idea. Also because the translator for every language > > may be a different person, so they'll end up editing the same object, > > more or less at the same time. > > I fully agree - as Gomez remarked as well, a fundamental rewrite is > required to properly support full-fledged multi-language content. However, > our aim right know is to have a MySites-like MMBase deployment supporting > 2 to 4 languages. For that purpose, I think the proposed add-on might be > sufficient. Yes. I think in this way the back-end implemetnation may be fully separated from the front-end-use, so it does not matter much. How do you plan to deal with translations statuses? I mean, if the original changes, the translations probably remain existing, but are 'outdated' then. On the front-end you need choosing then what to do: fall back to a default language, or fall back to an out-dated translation. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
