[Chandler-dev] is a unified displayName a good thing?

Katie Capps Parlante capps at osafoundation.org
Mon Apr 17 09:49:29 PDT 2006

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.


More information about the chandler-dev mailing list