The original vision for groups in documentation was simply organization. You create a group, you assign a doc record to a group, you sort the order of groups or records in a group, and the group could be hidden or shown independently.
But now we are seeing how this could blossom into something a bit more useful, where groups become scopes, and in essence define an object. A couple of questions that come out of that:
1. When using groups strictly for organization, and while keeping the field name globally unique, it wouldn't be necessary or advantageous to require the full name (group.element.field) to be entered or displayed, while for true objects, the group name would be required for uniqueness. Would it bother anyone if we required groups to be created as organizational vs object?
2. Since we are also adding user defined structure elements, there is clearly some overlap here. Do you construct your structure concept as true structures contiguous in memory and able to be added as memory blocks, but with the limitation of containing simple types only, or do you construct your structures as documentation objects, with the advantage of being able to contain any valid element...even strings and other structures...but only as random heterogeneous memory?
3. And lastly, does the #2 makes things complicated to the point that folks get confused?
I very much like where this is going, but I fear that like so many things in Do-more, we'll offer too many ways to solve the same problem and users will get confused.
