[chaley]

Originally Posted by kaufman

If this means that if there are no rights at all then lefts would go all the way across, then that's good enough for me.

One of the interesting "problems" with doing this derives from something related to what you say: are the cells the same?

Consider a cell where something in both left and right have a value. You see left and right. But what happens in another cell where the left (or right) doesn't have a value? Do we show the empty cell?

Another question: do left and right take 50% of the space each, or does the space allocate? For example, if I put tags on the left and publisher on the right, does the left grow as needed?

In both cases the cells for individual books would differ from one another. This is in fact what Android would want to do, but it might look rather unusual to the user.

Finally, are there borders? Something separating the cells?

Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. I was just thinking out loud. I think that the version with no compound field display will be such a nice addition, that we can put off thinking about compound fields until version 4.

Are you planning on pinning

Title
Author (Series[Index])

to the top, or will we lose the current single line of author and series? That would be a pity and somewhat of a step backwards.

First, note that the content of the first and second lines depends on what sort is in use. If the primary sort is author then the first line is author and the second line is title/series. If the primary sort is otherwise, the first line is title and the second line is author/series. In both cases the third line is the date being sorted on, should that be the case.

My position is that these first 2 (or three) lines are inviolate. They will always be there. The optional cells will appear below. That might create some duplication in the case where one sorts on a date that is also shown in the optional fields. So be it.