On Apr 14, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
I am confused now. In your last comment about what the new field
will be you say "I've changed my mind: the new field should be
summary, not content." But you didn't really explain yourself.
So I am assuming that the new field will be summary (not required)
and the existing field is content (required).
Yes. Once I realized that we could make things work whether we add a
new summary or a new content field, I decided to go with the new
summary field.
Permalinks always show just the content field. Other pages show
summary if it exists, otherwise content?
Yes.
Also, about the editors list. It is fine with me if you want to
upgrade the rest of the editors, but I think we need to make a
stand here and communicate the fact that the old editors are
officially EOLed and are not supported. Even if they have been
upgraded they are still EOLed in my mind and I don't think we (the
dev team) should have to support such a large list of editors, that
is for users to do.
I'm not going to upgrade them. I'm going to remove them from the list
of available editors and I'm going to modify them so that they will
cause no data loss when used with entries that have both summary and
text.
- Dave
