[TYPO3] anchor tags

[Cate & Peter]

Hi Christopher

Thanks for persevering with me ... I think I understand now, but certainly
you have put me on the right track, so I am reasonably sure I can nut it
out.

> Just to expand a bit, nothing like
> 
> 	"section=lib.navigation"
> 
> ...is ever going to work in Typoscript at all. In specific instances,
> code like "something < lib.navigation" will work, but it's very
> important to understand the general rules for working with TS, or a) it
> starts to become a very long process, and b) it will shorten your life ;-D

:) That's when I hire someone else :) Anything more than tiny snippets is
not for me :)



> 
> This code:
> 
> 	"something < lib.navigation"
> 
> ...will work IF .something is a kind of object that expects a cObject as
> its input. If not, it will fail silently and nothing will happen at all.
> 
*eyes glazing over again .... * OOPS ... sorry ... I tell you, coding talk
just goes in one ear and out the other ... or in this case, eye :)


> This IS all in the TSref, though it's tough to figure it out from that
> document alone.

Yeah, it can be, although it helps me refine things after I get the general
gist from someone else :)

 If you want some further reading, I self-servingly
> recommend this:
> 
> 	http://www.typo3apprentice.com/howto/rtfm/
> 
> ...it tries to explain how the TSref can be used effectively to solve
> problems with TS.
> 


Thanks, I will have a look - who knows, I may even understand one day :)

> * If I know Dreamweaver, it will have put in the <a name="foo"></a> kind
> of anchors, but just using an id attribute instead makes for much nicer
> code. 

Oh, ok... but then I guess I will need to have different from css, as my css
is mostly reusable... ie class not id.

If you just put 'id="something"' into a div--you're probably doing
> this anyway for CSS purposes--you do NOT need anything like '<a
> name="something"></a>' to link to. Try it with just the ID attribute.

Will do - thanks for the tip. Is it just personal taste, or is there a
technical benefit doing it this way.


> 
> If you want my opinion--you didn't ask for it, so feel free to ignore it
> completely :)--Dreamweaver is a dreadful tool *unless* you're already
> quite advanced with HTML, in which case, it's a decent tool for coding.

:) Yeah, I can understand a coder's perspective - no WYSIWYG is ever as good
as the hard code. In my case, the WYSIWYG actually *taught* me HTML, so now
I do a great deal of tweaking. But I still love getting a base idea of what
it looks like. I do not have a great brain for coding (or for accounting,
but that is a different topic). I have a great brain for calculating, but
for some reason it never carried over into code, even though I have been
playing with it since I was 10 years old, and even did a year at uni. Don't
know why ... just a personal failing I guess.

> 
> That said however, it is, without exception, and in every version I've
> ever tried, from version 2 to the its current incarnation the very WORST
> ftp client I have ever used. I've never understood how people can use it
> to maintain static sites with large numbers of html pages and stay sane...


I know what you mean - we never use the ftp part :)

Cate