Drupal 7.4
Seems a bit wierd to me - field identifiers/labels on out-of-the-box content types behave as local to the content type - i.e. one can have the same identifier on fields in different content types (such as Title and Body example). And when I create a new content type I get these local names for free. Yet when I try to re-use names in different content types Mr. "don't do naughty things" says "you can't do that because the name is already in use" - i.e. user-defined field names behave as if they are global.
Is there some reason for this and any way around it ? Its quite limiting having to artificially choose different names for the same thing in different records (for example if I'm using a Tag field with its own vocabulary in more than one record - if I want to define a content type that has a Tag field I can't unless I call it something else because the name is in use).
I'm a bit of a drupal newbie but learning fast.
andy
It is because you can have the same field on many coontent types. As example, i create a field with the name "image" and add it to a content type. If i want a field with same name and same options on another content type, i can just use that "image" field i created before, i do not need to create a new field.
Ermmm - no, that; exactly what I would have expected and what it won't do for me. For example, Article has a field
Label: Tags Name: Field_tags
Its value has several type attributes that constrain what in some programming language or other I might call its "type" - I can re-use these without problem. But suppose I want to create another content-type of my own with a field having the same Label and Name - the system won't do it - I have to call them say Tags1 and Field_tags1.
Now Label and Name are not different kinds of things from the other fields so why should they be immutable ? Also - they *are* re-used, but only in content that comes out-of-the box not user-defined content.
This seems to be a limitation (but it may be me doing something wrong). If it *is* a limitation in practice then my question is - is it a necessary limitation of the model/paradigm and if so why ?
andy