[Gnumed-devel] Re: Fields in the FD (Qt) GUI -- eureka!

[Jim Busser]

On 2010-02-27, at 7:38 AM, Jim Busser wrote:

> FD is actually here offering the ability to define *protocols*. This name (at 
> least for english users) would only take away a few mm of field width, if you 
> would think it is acceptable and more true to the intent. Is "Protocol" ok?

more reasons why for english I better like "Protocol" than "Label"

- "Protocol" says more than "what is this", it can say "what is it for, and how 
do we use it?" while  "Label" most naturally refers to the piece of paper one 
sees on the pill bottle
 


Will FD risk to make an error when looking at the dosages.db from a different 
loaded db than was created/saved the Standard dosage Protocol, or will FD save 
the db name in the XML in case there would be a matching CIS in both?

I should point out that the CIS will not match across different database so 
even if there would be a standard team, the records in dosage.db cannot work 
across multiple countries db unless the cis dependency would be removed and the 
ATC used instead. This would also be part of saving (re-using) a prescription 
in "generic mode" so that even when the individual commercial product that was 
last time used is no longer available, the prescription will not break but can 
instead use some alternate supplier based on the same ATC.

Assuming the "standards team" remains a goal shall I create, and put these 
things on,

        RoadmapFdFuture

?