Mathieu Leplatre

Then I guess there are not explicitely stored ?

I don't reproduce this locally :(

Shouldn't we add limit of size btw ? Also, would you mind adding a small mention in docs ?

@AntoineCezar The two examples you gave are already covered by either RangeField or EnumField. With validation functions I had something more elaborate, even something like cross fields validation ! @ametaireau...

``` validation: "return (fields.single || fields.wedding_date > 1900)" ``` Parsed and executed in python, or JS executed server-side with http://code.google.com/p/pyv8/

Seems interesting indeed, but it looks like a different story : "replacing current formalism for model definitions by JSON schema". This one was dedicated to "custom validation logic between fields"....

Completely agree with what's being said here. Regarding the original issue, adding custom validation between fields at model definition level is probably a bad idea. @AntoineCezar pointed this out with...

Yep, should be okay :) I posted this issue as a reminder, so that we don't get stuck eventually

Colander seems to manage i18n already, it should be plugged with `accept-language` then. What about translations of fields ? descriptions ? choices ? Should they be pushed along with model...

You can try introduction tools like chardin.js :)