[Chandler-dev] is a unified displayName a good thing?
bkirsch at osafoundation.org
Tue Apr 18 12:24:23 PDT 2006
>>> 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 Kirsch - Cosmo Developer / Chandler Internationalization Engineer
Open Source Applications Foundation
543 Howard St. 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
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
>> - 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.
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
More information about the chandler-dev