>> Agreed but a) we already display that data and b) it's useful to give
>> users a ballpark figure, even if something like "$99.99US as at
>> 15/12/2007"
>
> I have to go with fetter here. Pricing is not our concern.
I actually feel quite strongly about that one - it's not *our*
concern, but it is the concern of the users. There's nothing worse
than researching a product, and eventually finding out after trawling
the website for half an hour that it's way too expensive. As an
end-user I always wanted to see a ballpark figure up front.
>> Possibly. Makes the coding & management a little more tricky though.
>> If we were to do that perhaps it should be part of a larger project to
>> have a directory of vendors/publishers etc for news, events, services
>> and products.
>
> Yeah I mentioned this in my previous post. Publisher really needs to be
> pushed out. There is entirely too much redundant information that can be
> accumulated.
OK so the difficulty here/previously is that you are essentially
saying I need to write a publisher management system and a product
management system, and update sponsors, news, events, services etc to
use that data as well. Nice in theory, but not something I have time
to do.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-www mailing list (pgsql-www@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www
No comments:
Post a Comment