On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 19:09, Aleksey Lim <alsr...@member.fsf.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:48:33PM +0000, Aleksey Lim wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:08:30PM -0300, Andrés Ambrois wrote:
>> > On Monday, August 23, 2010 04:25:48 am Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> > >
>> > > - creation time will be always displayed as '%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S' ? What
>> > > about those countries where they expect the fields being ordered in a
>> > > different way? (may be good to format the string in listview.py
>> > > instead of in listmodel.py, so we keep UI decisions out from the
>> > > model).
>> >
>> > I agree with that separation of concerns. In fact it was initially that
>> > way,
>> > but the format is required by activities such as Etoys, that break unless
>> > we
>> > use it. Other activities may also be depending on it, as it is documented
>> > in
>> > [0].
>>
>> If are talking about UI representaion, then it is ok ("ago" format).
>> About internal representaion, Andrés, for what readon we store ctime in ISO,
>> what about int value (to keep it in the same format as timestamp)?
>
> Sorry, didn't see [0] (was thinking that we dind't expose any ctime
> fields before), what about renaming ctime ds field and using int value.
Ttat sounds interesting.
Regards,
Tomeu
> --
> Aleksey
>
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
