On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:58:10 +0000, Gabor Hojtsy <gabor@hojtsy.hu> wrote:

Node != content. Or if we use the name 'content' for 'node', we could actually replace all apperances of 'node' with 'content'... I assumed we use the 'content' word on the interface to not scare people, but acknowledging that a 'content' is less then a 'node'. It all comes down to the definition of course, so both of these words can mean the same. But is a 'user profile' (which is going to be buildable with CCK) a 'content'??? Is a product a 'content'? I would not use this word for it. But then I am not a native English speaker, so I might have a different view on it...

In my defense, perhaps I don't fully understand the purpose of the new module. Jonathan Chaffer wrote:

Suppose node.module handles all of the content types defined by node modules as today, and a new module is added that handles the administrator-defined content types. What should that module be called?

I understood that this new module will manage administrator defined "content" types and that it would not replace node.module. I agree that a node may not necessarily be content but it does not sound like this module will be used to define user accounts as those would logically be be defined in the user module. If I am mistaken then some clarification regarding this module's purpose may be in order. As someone whose mother tongue is English I will say that I consider any entered data (i.e. is not text that is part of the user interface) to be technically content. That would include user profiles, blog comments, photos, hyperlinks, categories, et cetera. Note that I said "technically" though and that I don't think that end users should need to understand what either content or a node is. I may also be alone in my definition.