# \[APPROVED\] New Field Type: JSON

**URL:** <https://community.fibery.io/t/approved-new-field-type-json/9816>\
**Category:** Ideas & Features\
**Tags:** flexible-domain\
**Created:** [October 13, 2025, 11:56am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/approved-new-field-type-json/9816 "2025-10-13T11:56:09Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Yuri\_BC](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/yuri_bc/32/8803_2.png) [@Yuri\_BC](https://community.fibery.io/u/Yuri_BC)\
**Post date:** [October 20, 2025, 1:52pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/approved-new-field-type-json/9816/11 "2025-10-20T13:52:52Z")

</div>

Related / the same:

> [@Request: new field type 'Code' (not rich text field with code block in it)](https://community.fibery.io/t/request-new-field-type-code-not-rich-text-field-with-code-block-in-it/8757):
>
> I like to suggest the creation of a new field of type ‘Code’ Reason: Using a rich text document field always requires to include manually (or automatic) insertion of a code block (backticks) to store code. This is overcomplication when working with automations and workflows that handle code and not rich text. A dedicated ‘Code’ field offers: Clear, direct programmatic access to raw code, unlike the need to parse formatted text in rich text. Structured storage of code language, enabling lang…

---

_[View the full topic](https://community.fibery.io/t/approved-new-field-type-json/9816)._