In my project, I have a need to localize assets, which is a common use case.
My solution is to have a schema with a localizable asset as part of the schema. This works, but I am thinking it would be simpler if the asset itself were localized in some cases.
I’m thinking about assets like a logo. There might be an english and a french version of the logo, and the asset may be referenced in many schemas. Instead of localizing each schema, we could instead localize the asset directly and just reference it.
Just a thought.
I understand the requirement, but how often is this the case? I assume that most assets do not need it and with other features in the roadmap like language-based permissions it would make it even more complicated. Also validation, when your logo is required for all languages.
Well I agree that the goal is to reduce complexity.
I didn’t know about the language based permissions feature, that would cause an issue.
As far as validation, wouldn’t it be the same as the schema validation?
In my case, every asset needs to be localized and I have three schemas that essentially wrap the asset to make it localizable. One for images, one for libs and a third for generic media.
In order to retrieve an asset, I need to request the schema data item, get the asset id or slug, then request the asset.
If assets were directly localizable, I would be able to skip that first request and go directly to the asset. I would, however, lose my “libs”, “images”, “media” organization, but I could always use tags for that.
This is not at all a requirement, more of a discussion point.
If I think about localization, I also think about variation, e.g. a logo could have 3 different versions like the new facebook logo. I would probably generalize it in this direction.
I can very much see the usefulness of variation