James Bennett wrote: > On 7/11/06, Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I need to test this properly and fill in the mappings, but the gist of >> the approach should be clear. When that's done, unless someone has an >> objection, I'll file a patch against > > The structure and logic look good; my only worry is that this will > eventually get pretty unwieldy; just looking over the languages we > already support through the i18n system, we'd be carrying around a > pretty huge mapping from the get-go, and it would only grow over time. > And God help us if we seriously decide to support slugifying CJK ;)
Thanks James. I think if it got to that stage, it's in the class of good problems to have (Django having achieved world domination). I guess we'd need to look at going back to python to run against unicodedata and/or server sided mappings as Antonio pointed out. I think using a Downcoder object gives room to callback to the server to the do the work if needed (the logic would be refactored into python). I'm not sure how people would fold in their locale/custom mappings at that stage, but it might be a nice to have feature. cheers Bill --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
