Hi, According to this ticket https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/17136, I found the localflavor module being a very neat idea but was a bit disappointed with the actual consistency between the different locales and their implementation.
Also, the difference in implementation makes the documentation inaccurate and a bit confusing. I would like to propose the following improvements: - Widget should be abstracted by the api and fields should always be implemented. I think that's it's more 'natural' to expect a field instead of having to mess with regular field, widget and class attributes. Look at the actual implementation of the BE locale against the CA locale and it should make my point clear ( CA is the way to follow ;-) ) - Another point is that I often find myself having to deal with City and Postal codes database, I think it would be nice to have them available too but the number of items is quite huge for each country and I don't know if it's really something that should come included in Django. Also I have no clue how we can avoid to impact the general memory usage and performances. Depending on the outcome of this thread and your opinions, I'd be happy to help to improve the Be locale and to provide a general guidelines along with documentation on this matter. Waiting for your ideas and comments. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django internationalization and localization" group. To post to this group, send email to django-i18n@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-i18n+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-i18n?hl=en.
