[TYPO3-core] The XML tags of FlexForm data

[Dmitry Dulepov]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi!

Kasper Sk?rh?j wrote:
> In version 4.0 robert and I decided to "flavour" the XML tags used in
> FlexForm XML. Yesterday, I discovered that this flavouring is "buggy"
> when a structure is deeper than the first level. So I actually improved
> it to a complete state. The question is now if we should change this at
> this point.

I can think only about sections here but they worked well. Someone
reported problems in T with nested containers but I never experienced
this...

Would be nice to have more information about it.

> However, Robert told me that some users were parsing the XML by
> themselves. Therefore our first attempt to make the XML look better
> broke some external installations. Robert and I decided that we would do
> it this one time because the advantage was XML which could be validated
> (rather than having sDEF, lDE, vRU and field_myHeader tags!).

Old structure was well-formed xml. In fact what is changed now -
<field_hello> becomes <field index="hello"> (why "index" and not "id" or
"name", which is more common for xml?).

When you say "could be validated" you mean validate with DTD or schema,
right? How important it is for typo3? Do you plan to create such DTD or
schema? If not, there is no reason to change well-formed to valid. Also
validation will decrease parsing time for xml and _may_ decrease
significantly if schema is complex.

Another question is about data structures in TemplaVoila. Does this
change in any way affects DSes? Will old DSes be compatible with 4.0?
Many DSes are modified manually, so this is important issue. Rebuilding
DSes with thousands of lines is not good. I see no obvious problems with
DSes because they are just another XML but it should be taken into
account as well.

> My suggestion is that we go with the complete flavoured XML as I made
> it. Then it is done, over and out. Further I actually took the chance to
> introduce an option in TYPO3_CONF_VARS which will ignore the flavouring;
> this is essentially a switch for backwards compatibility for those who
> like.

This is good :)

> Here I show what the XML looks like _before_ (<4.0) and _after_ (my
> suggested configuration for 4.0):

I afraid "prior" picture is wrong. There were no <field> tags but
<field_header>, <field_image>, etc.

Dmitry.
- --
"It is our choices, that show what we truly are,
far more than our abilities." (A.P.W.B.D.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEF87PRVcYnKJ8N6kRAjwvAKCQGxCQLP3ad49pwdxm0CQuicdvowCgkNv7
lFIjYYD6OjLp0SJoILoVq8M=
=S+WD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----