[TYPO3] 5th column?

[Tapio Markula]

Erik Svendsen wrote:

> The history of the classic page module is table based design.

Ok. I understand but what is really irritating in your, TemplaVoila 
folks is that you answer - "Yes, use TemplaVoila" in every question.

To the question '5ht column?', anwer 'Use TemplaVoila' is *wrong answer'.

When you ask '5ht column?' you apparently use the standard page 
module,¨which as as default four columns. 'Use TemplaVoila' is *not* an
answer to the question 'Is is possible to add 5th column to the standard 
page module'. TemplaVoila doesn't have as default four column, which you 
add 5th colum - that's why the answer is not correct. *let people first 
answer to the original question*

You *can* say. 'As an *different alternative* to put to add to the 
standard page module 5th column, use TemplaVoila'.


> TV approach more intiutive and logical when working with tableless design.

logical - yes because MTB use terms, which don't belong to tableless design.


> But I find it easier to do when mapping the HTML-templates.

Yes - naming contentareas is easier using TemplaVoila except you need 
labels for different languages. Editing locallang_db-file you can set 
fast labels for all needed languages - endeed this doesn't work, if you 
need different names for different branches.

>> modern template building has easily tree levels - main template -
>> content area template - content element template (using some plugin).
>> I have *newer* needed more and I can't image that I newer need more

> But it still hasn't the same opportunity for nesting as TV. 

But for relative simple solution, where you don't need nesting, TV is
unnecessary complex solution.


>> It *was* nicer than the old page module but not anymore.

> Don't agree, but I like iconbased UI with as little text as possible.

The problem - as I have told - is that it doesn't support properly 
skinning because it is impossible to create good skin for TemplaVoila 
because the generated structure doesn't have enough classes to control 
the BE-layout. And building with XCLASSing different variations is painful.

>> no problem with the standard page module - you can set as many content
>> areas you need - I have define ten content areas for it - and six is
>> the maximum I have ever used.

> 
> But you have to install tm_contentaccess, who aren't any userfriendly 
> extensions for a lot of people.

I know - it is painful for the webmaster with all possible settings - it 
is not userfriendly for the webmaster.
But it can give userfriendly BE for the *end users*.

>> IMO slow process. When I do the HMLT-template, I know where to put
>> content and that's it.

> What is slow with this process. 

using mapper tool

> ready HTML template in XHTML with CSS until the page worked wouldn't be 
> much different.

agreed - the mapping time doesn't take much time if you compare it to 
all time you need

> hours. And I have done it both ways, and don't find any difference in 
> use of time.

certainly small difference

>> no - but I feel that some people are hostile toward MTB - I have red
>> that it should be soon dead - that *is* really *hostile* attitude
> 
> 
> Don't agree, this isn't hostile, people are only expressing their view 
> of what the future of TYPO3 is. 

 >Someone want TV to be the only  templating engine

What else this is than  hostile attitude toward MTB* - you want to stop 
using alternative solution for TV

, someone want the flexibility of three different ways
> (maybe four) of templating, and others want Smarty as engine. In every 
> software development, there will be discussions about what considered as 
> dead ends. Some see TV as the future, and classic page module as a dead 
> end

It seems that you force people like me to change to use another CMS.
In many situations classis page module is enough and easy solution.
Why make thing with unnecessary complex way?

IMO TemplaVoila has some complexities for end-users.

> other want them side by side

that's my wish

> and maybe others (like me) want them  to merge together

quite difficult

 >But if you see this as a hostile approach, it's your problem

people, who want to stop me using approach, which I like, are my enemies
and hostile

 >And if you want to be a part of the community, you have to
> accept others view without seeing them as hostile.

in some situation I see them hostile

  > Then you should relearn the people who makes the template. Table based
> design is a bad way to do webpages. Less accessebility, more difficult 
> to redesign and so on.

I can't learn anybody - it is not my task. I get ready made 
HTML-template, which are often generate with Macromedia Dreamveawer. It 
is sometimse very painful to put id-attributes to and think how to 
handle the template, if it has many table layers.

> Maybe because I have the hand on the whole templating process, I find TV 
> the right tool.

maybe it would be sometimes easier to see the structure visually in 
order to put id attributes to correct places. But you need to add 
alternatives and then change the HTML-structure. This is always painful, 
if you have extremely complex HTML-structure.

> people. To use statment as "it is complety another kind of solution - 
> IMO too complex in most cases." isn't any advice at all. Maybe the 
> person already is using TV, then it's probably the best solution.

it was react to wrong answer to the question '5th column?'