On 1 June 2014 22:45, Daniel Friesen <daniel(a)nadir-seen-fire.com> wrote:
What kind of decoupling did you have in mind?
Not specifying that each skin has to have exactly one lc identifier
and then starting to rely on this requirement and generate all sorts
of secondary names, identifiers, paths, class names, etc. from that.
E.g why not just ask that skin for it's localized name?
I know there is loads of legacy code to deal with here and this
business with the message identifiers for the skin names in particular
is not the object of the on-going changes. It's just that I'd rather
not have an explicit requirement introduced specifying that there must
be exactly one all-purpose lower-case id per skin.