> I used to be in the plural camp. But I've become fond of the singular > camp. That way the table can more easily match the names of the columns. > This makes things easier when it comes to making automatic tools for > sanitizing input and reverse engineering databases.
Makes sense. I will join your camp. > > I never know what to name timestamp/date fields. > > What's your issue? Not calling things "date"? I tend to call things > "birth_date", "creation_date" etc. Yeah, that's the crux of the problem. I feel like it is something I shouldn't have to think about, but every time I create a table I have to stop and think: "date_created or creation_date or created or date_added or add_date" and "transaction_time or transaction_timestamp or transaction_datetime or transaction_date" Then I think, I'll just follow the last guys convention and discover "the_date" is being used. "the_date" is wrong on so many levels that I can't stand the thought of repeating it. > All that aside, you didn't answer the burning question: did my query > suggestion work?! :) > Yes of course!... but Kenneth beat you to it. I had it in my head that I wanted a flexible fallback path for languages like: zh_CN' -> zh_TW -> zh_US -> en_US fr_CA -> fr_FR -> en_us When I actually asked the question, I simplified it. After I saw how elegant and simple the two language solution is, I decided it wasn't worth the additional complexity to have the fallback path. Cheers, John Campbell _______________________________________________ New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online http://www.nyphpcon.com Show Your Participation in New York PHP http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
