| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I also think the single name field would ultimately be the best. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 810 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I also think the single name field would ultimately be the best. A single name field with a 'sort name' field that is local just like titles!  pdf OK, part joke, part this could really work! | | | Paul Francis
San Juan Capistrano, CA, USA |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pdf256: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
I also think the single name field would ultimately be the best.
A single name field with a 'sort name' field that is local just like titles!
pdf
OK, part joke, part this could really work! You'll just move the problem to the "sorting name" then. This would only be an improval if the sorting name is to be kept local. But then it might work. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|