> It looks like an interesting idea. I don't have time right now to look at it in depth, but it looks interesting. -- [[Will]]
+> I agree such a separation makes some sense. But note that the discussion on [[todo/structured_page_data]]
+> talks about associating data types with fields for a good reason: It's hard to later develop a good UI for
+> querying or modifying a page's data if all the data has an implicit type "string". --[[Joey]]
+
+>> I'm not sure that having an implicit type of "string" is really such a bad thing. After all, Perl itself manages with just string and number, and easily converts from one to the other. Strong typing is generally used to (a) restrict what can be done with the data and/or (b) restrict how the data is input. The latter could be done with some sort of validated form, but that, too, could be decoupled from looking up and returning the value of a field. --[[KathrynAndersen]]
+
## Second Pass
I have written additional plugins which integrate with the [[plugins/contrib/field]] plugin to both set and get structured page data.
> with different syntaxes while keeping `field` for the
> behind-the-scenes bits.
>
+>> I've started using `field` on a private site and it's working
+>> well for me; I'll try to do some code review on its
+>> [[plugins/contrib/field/discussion]] page. --s
+>
> My [[plugins/contrib/album]] plugin could benefit from
-> integration with [[field]] for photos' captions and so on,
+> integration with `field` for photos' captions and so on,
> probably... I'll try to work on that at some point.
>
> [[plugins/contrib/report]] may be doing too much, though: