> god, pet peeve number one when it comes to database design -- > storing a list > of ids in a field. no offense -- yuck. no offense taken of course. is the alternative another table in the database, and then a sequencing column also to allow ordering items within a set? ie, CONTENT table, ITEMSET, and then the table in between? (not too late to change if you think it's an utterly critical matter - just want to avoid overly complicating things (especially on the administrative side). actually, now that i think about it a bit more, maybe the extra table with many-to-many r'ships is the better solution :p) > i can understand that. this is a pretty cool feature. was probably kinda > fun building and testing too. i think i would have made this a lower > priority than versioning though, but that's just me. yeh, probably should've done it in the reverse order. oh well. too late now. :p other remaining features of low priority include scheduling, endaction (specify what happens to an item when it reaches its enddate), etc. back to it..