[TYPO3-dev] FORM element

[Steffen Kamper]

Hi Ernesto,

first of all i'm glad to hear from you as a core developer. I know many user 
are wish a better module for the daily work, but without support from core 
team it's difficult.

"Ernesto Baschny [cron IT]" <ernst at cron-it.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:mailman.1.1179491171.9739.typo3-dev at lists.netfielders.de...
> Francois Suter wrote: on 17.05.2007 10:09:
>
>>> I know i could use mailformplus or others, but i would like to see a
>>> more advanced Object in Core
>>> Agrees ? Disagrees ?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> One particular point: implementation of styles is incomplete/incoherent
>> making it difficult to get the desired look when styling with CSS styled
>> content. I looked into this a while ago, but didn't have time to really
>> make any changes.
>>
>> A bit more formatting options would be nice too, like the possibility of
>> defining rows of form fields.
>>
>> Keep me posted when you start working on that.
>
> +1 on that. Some time ago I had some "ideas" about it, but was stalled
> when I hit the ugly cow of backwards compatibility:
>
> http://bugs.typo3.org/view.php?id=2119
>

Very good to know. I will look at your patch. Why is this open for so long 
time, can you give me a specific hint of the main problem ?

> I would also love to see more "action" on that scene, but I think the
> manpower to make that happen are already using stuff like FORMidable,
> mailformplus etc. We miss people that need more flexibility and have
> some free manpower to work on the issues in the Core solution.

this is always a problem, because time is a rare thing. And everyone has to 
set his own priorities - anyway to less time.
I will make a little project for that starting from ECT and placed on Wiki 
so everyone is invited to support and adding ideas.
Backwards compatibility could be achieved by a flag, simular to the table 
object.

>
> Mainly that would first mean collecting a list of reasonable
> "small-fixes" to the current FORM object that might be easier to
> integrate into core. Getting some "major rework" on that area always
> will mean some backwards compatibility restriction which makes them hard
> for us to approve.
>
You are right to fix the bugs first, also a good way to understand the whole 
thing better.

> So I would love to support you on reviewing and/or commenting work on
> that area, as I can judge more or less what we can bring into core and
> what would be a "no-go" that needs more working on.
>
> Cheers,
> Ernesto

you are very welcome ;-)

vg  Steffen