[TYPO3-dev] RFC:s standard processing property as stdWrap replacement

[Steffen Kamper]

"Martin Kutschker" <martin.kutschker-n0spam at no5pam-blackbox.net> schrieb im 
Newsbeitrag 
news:mailman.1.1176658067.14859.typo3-dev at lists.netfielders.de...
> Elmar Hinz schrieb:
>>
>> To transfer this to the original context we could think of:
>>
>> temp.foobar = HTML
>> temp.foobar.value.process.10.getData = date : U
>> temp.foobar.value.process.20.stringForTime = %A %e. %B %Y
>>
>> temp.foobar.value.wrap.10.trim = <em> | </em>
>> temp.foobar.value.wrap.20.noTrim = <p>Time: | </p>
>
> I don't get it why we need a "process" and a "wrap". A wrap is simply a 
> processing like any other.
>
> temp.foobar.value.process.10.wrap = <em> | </em>
> temp.foobar.value.process.20.noTrimWrap = |label:    |.|
>
> You can even have this:
>
> temp.foobar.value.process.10.wrap = | + |
> temp.foobar.value.process.10.wrap.splitChar = +
>
> (though I would name it "separator" or "delimiter")
>
> I wouldn't change the current "wrap" (adding the array feature). I think 
> this is more confusing then adding *one* new property.

you're right, but wrap is the right word for doin' a wrap. The process is ok 
to use for me.
I also just play arround with these expressions.
>
>> But we run into troubles as soon if we want to do a processing including
>> the wrappers:
>>
>> temp.foobar.value.process.30.tagsToUpperCase = 1    ???
>
> What's different to ...
>
>> So it's necessary to have one processing array:
>>
>> temp.foobar = HTML
>> temp.foobar.value.process.10.getData = date : U
>> temp.foobar.value.process.20.stringForTime = %A %e. %B %Y
>> temp.foobar.value.process.30.trim = <em> | </em>
>> temp.foobar.value.process.40.noTrim = <p>Time: | </p>

what happens here ?
you have the numeric array, so we have an order. But what does trim and then 
noTrim ? I don't understand.

>> temp.foobar.value.process.50.tagsToUpperCase = 1
>
> ...this? You changed the 30 to 50, but that isn't significant.
>
> Masi
>
> PS: Who needs a tagsToUpperCase? In XHTML all tags a only valid in 
> lowercase.

true, but the opposite would be more interesting tagsToLowerCase as kind of 
correction.

vg  Steffen