elmar.DOT.hinz at team.MINUS.red.DOT.net
Fri May 18 00:46:32 CEST 2007
thank you for the good compilation of the thread and your details views.
My feeling about consistency differs in one point.
> I'd like to suggest that we use TypoScript only as a configuration
> syntax for the content rendering. I have had many discussions during
> the last years where we had lots of ideas what else we could do with
> TS but my gut feeling says that we should not mix things up - how
> would you implement standard wrap in a locallang file? Or explain to
> someone that in that special scope standard wrap is not available?
> I'm much in favour of consistency here ...
To be honest for me and others it's close to a nightmare that we have to
configure a T3 setup today in 3 different formats in round about 10
differnt places. Only to do a clean configuration of the RTE you have to
configure 3 different places, TCA for the basics, page/user TS for
refinement, TS for adapting the parsers.
It took me nearly a year to discover all the necessary places that are
involved. Such an approach is good for totally crazy freaks, but not for
My favour of consitency is to have a single configuration language and at
max. 3 places to work on. So I question myself, wich configuration language
could serve all requiremets.
1.) setup of the hierarchical content object tree
2.) easy to handle definition of a multitude of language lables
3.) handling of a multitude of differnt configuration parameters
I come to a clear answer. It's TS in first place, followed by YAML.
A language configuration could look like this:
frontpage.title = Roberts personal guestbook
frontpage.title = Roberts persönliches Gästebuch
No stdWrap is not needed to do this. It's not even part of TS.
It's a pseudo method wihin a legendary class configured in TS.
More information about the TYPO3-project-5_0-general