If there are any improvements at all to be gained here, it is that there should be NO default Drupal content types, except maybe by way of example.<br><br>Therefore, _nothing_ should be assumed about sub-class terms, they will be up to the end user in each case.<br>
<br>So rather than argue in favor or against "post" as opposed to whatever, something like "content" (i.e. generic) is what should go.<br><br>Victor Kane<br><a href="http://awebfactory.com.ar">http://awebfactory.com.ar</a><br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Syscrusher <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:syscrusher@4th.com">syscrusher@4th.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 06:41 +0100, Ronald Ashri wrote:<br>
> For example a page could be a Title and Content, but a story would be<br>
> Title, Post (a more blog-like name),<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>I respectfully disagree. "Content" is a nice generic term, and I think<br>
that the same field should be called the same thing across all the<br>
standard Drupal-default node types. Also, many Drupal sites are not<br>
blogs nor blog-like sites, so we should not assume that blog-ish<br>
terminology will be familiar to all Drupal content creators.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Scott<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
Syscrusher <<a href="mailto:syscrusher@4th.com">syscrusher@4th.com</a>><br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>