[TYPO3-UG US] Status of TYPO3.us

[Alex Heizer]

Hi Christopher,

Christopher wrote:

>On 12/17/05, Alex Heizer <alex at tekdevelopment.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi Christopher,
>>
>>Christopher wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
><snip>
>  
>
>>>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.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>No, that is not what I said. Please don't quote me out of context. I
>was responding to these remarks:
>  
>
I didn't quote you out of context. You said "I haven't built a site the 
'old' way since the FTB tutorial appeared". I used this as the basis for 
my comment, which was, I assumed that you had previously used a non-FTB 
(TV) method to make templates. I apologize if I had assumed incorrectly.

I still believe that it's important for new users to learn the 
fundamentals first, and to create a single solid volume of documentation 
rather than patch existing, sometimes outdated documents.


>>SInce TV is an extension, and in no way helps you learn the proper way
>>to create a site in TypoScript, it would appear in the appendix as an
>>additional way to make a site, once the reader already knows the proper
>>way to code a site.
>>    
>>
>
>_The_ "proper way to create a site," or "proper way to code a site"?
>What makes TS-only the 'proper way'? I say that _which_ templating
>method is used makes absolutely NO difference to how much TS a
>developer is going to have to learn and NO difference to how soon
>they're going to need to learn it. If (as I thought), this tutorial is
>supposed to provide a realistic foundation for continuing with Typo3,
>I'd say it should make the widely-used options very clear. As has
>already been pointed out, there are clear advantages to using TV for
>organizations that would prefer to assign html/css and TS to different
>people/departments.
>  
>
The fact that, even with TV, TYPO3 uses TypoScript to do everything, I 
would say that makes TS the "proper way" to create a site. The 
foundation is still TS, regardless of whether you use one extension or 
another to make your TS-coding experience more or less automatic than 
hand-coding a whole TS/HTML/CSS site. Ultimately, even though TV is a 
really cool extension, conceptually, in terms of this project, it is 
still an extension. It will be represented, but not in the primary 
how-to. Just, once the fundamentals are covered it will have a section 
that shows *why* it's a cool extension, and when it saves you a ton of 
steps, here are the steps it saves, and here are all the reasons (which 
now make sense) why it's good to use in certain situations. Absolutely 
nobody is arguing against showing off TV, but it isn't the core way to 
create a site in T3, TypoScript is. So it should be shown as an 
alternative method, after the basics are learned.

Alex