1. Case: Same Name Across Field Groups:
In our setup, we utilize blocks comprising various ACF field groups. Each block is treated in its unique namespace by ACF, and we've assumed a similar approach by WPML. It appears unusual that a distinct name for each field is necessary. Could you confirm if WPML requires unique names for every field within a block?
2. Case: Repeater Fields:
When employing repeater fields, the same field and name are reused iteratively. I'm seeking clarification on how WPML distinguishes and handles such scenarios. What distinguishes this case from using the same name on a group-type field and a sub-field within that group?
Solution:
In the case of repeater fields, field names are prefixed with parent field names. So ACF and WPML handle the field names correctly.
In the case of normal fields, all field names should be unique in different groups if they are being used on the same object. The same recommendation from ACF:
