[TYPO3-UG US] Status of TYPO3.us

[Alex Heizer]

Hi Christopher,

Christopher wrote:

>
>Yes! But I don't know how this has turned into an either/or
>proposition; if the project will be distributed as a complete site in
>a tarball, and the goal is to teach users how to template a site, why
>not just figure out how many methods there actually _are_ (I say
>two...), and make a site based on each one? This would involve
>relatively little extra work, and could be used to demonstrate a
>useful feature of Typo3--multiple sites in one tree.
>  
>
I don't know, either. The project was conceived as a way for a new user 
to learn TYPO3 in a single volume so that they would have a solid 
foundation of the building blocks of TYPO3, and how to use them. Since 
TV came afterwards, is still a beta extension, already has tutorials and 
documentation, and is designed as an easy way to build a site without 
having to learn T3's foundation, it doesn't seem to me like it really 
fits in this project except as an appendix. It would be best to make the 
site, then take each "new" way of building the same site and show "how 
the same site can be done with automake" or "how to make this site using 
the MTB method" or "here's how to do it using TV". Then, the reader can 
choose which way works best for them.


>Yes, that and a way of enabling BE users to switch templates easily.
>
>My vote, if anyone's interested would be to show the TS-only way (i.e.
>without automaketemplate), and the TV way. I think it'd be a really
>poor decision to omit what I think is going to become the most widely
>used templating system (i.e Templavoila) from what could be the most
>modern piece of how-to documentation on the basis of some
>squeamishness about including extensions. Honestly, I think it makes
>no sense to worry about including extensions; by and large, extensions
>are how new tools are added to the Typo3 toolbox--and this is as
>important a thing to learn as any if you're going to come to grips
>with how Typo3 works.
>  
>
First, nobody is talking about omitting TV, just putting it into proper 
context. It is not the foundation for creating templates, and it never 
will be so long as TS is still the basis for doing everything in T3. TV 
is an extension, and is still just a beta extension. It was created 
because someone wanted TYPO3 to be more Documentum-like instead of 
TYPO3-like. Before TV, the MTB was "going to become the most widely used 
templating system", and before that, automake. Under them all, and under 
whatever will come along to replace the TV extension in the future when 
people get tired of TV, is still TypoScript. I agree: let's not worry 
about including extensions. TV, included, because it is still only a 
beta extension. It's a very useful one, and one that people have spent a 
lot of time making into a good extension. But all semantics and personal 
preferences aside, it is still only an extension, one that lies on top 
of a solid foundation.

This project is about learning the foundation. Pure and simple.

>
>This is, IMO, totally untrue. I haven't built a site the 'old' way
>since the FTB tutorial appeared, and it's never made _any_ difference
>to how much TS has been required to build the site. If anything, a
>major hole in the current documentation--how to use TS in TV-based
>sites to plan for small changes could be patched with this project
>[1].
>
So you're saying you learned a certain level of the foundation and chose 
to use TV. Good, that is my point. Teach people the solid foundation, 
then when an extension is created to make their job easier, they can 
choose to use it or not. I choose not to use TV at all and my life is 
easier than if I used TV. But that's my personal preference. What you 
are suggesting is to patch existing documentation. What this project is 
designed to do is to create new, solid, current documentation that 
supersedes the existing collection of scattered documentation on 
learning T3.

Alex