[TYPO3-hci] "Places Containing TypoScript" (PCT)

[Uschi Renziehausen]

Irene Höppner wrote:
>>>  sure it is necessary. On one hand we talk about the way form the 
>>> backendform to the database and about the rendering and behaviour of 
>>> the backendform and on the other hand we talk about the way from the 
>>> database to the HTML-Output for the frontend. That's what makes a 
>>> Content Management System a Content Management System ;-).
>>
>> That is what makes up a CMS INTERNALLY.
> 
> Yes, sure internally. And TypoScript and TSConfig are used to make this 
> "internal working" doing what you need...
> What do you mean by highighting the word "internally"?
>>
>>> What i find confusing is, if we talk in both times about TypoScript. 
>>> We should say TypoScript and TSConfig. That makes it more clear i guess.
>>
>> This does not make things more translucent. This is a wording problem. 
>> In my eyes TypoScript is the name of the language we are using for the 
>> Page Template Section and the Page Config Section. Perhaps we could 
>> call the other two Page Frontend Config and the other Page BE-Config.
>>
> You're completly right. The wording is confusing, and I like your idea 
> of calling it frontend config and backend config.

I tried to analyse the ways of my brain.

- I want to influence the appearance of my PAGE in the frontend.
- I have to CONFIGURE (predicate) my PAGE (direct object!)
     - for the BE (indirect object 1)
     - for the FE (indirect object 2)

Now, if the basic task I have to perform is to configure my page, why is 
it, that I have to go to page properties in order to do so for BE, and 
to Web->Template, if want to do it for the FE?

So from that point of view, Page TSConfig is in the wrong place, and if 
it was up to me, I would put it under Web->Template, which then would be 
divided into two sections:

Frontend Configuration
Backend Configuration

This way it would become quite clear
1) that you have to do both
2) where what is done

It would be interesting to know the reason for putting it under page 
properties in the first place. Perhaps I was putting 'INTERNALLY' into 
capital letters, because I suspected technical reasons. Anyway, as I 
told you, I am a newbie.

> What is also hard to understand is, that TypoScript and TSConfig have 
> nothing in common except for the syntax.

No, this is not true. They have the same basic purpose as well: 
Configuring things. They differ in vocabulary, because they deal with 
different subject matter.

> Thinking... If it would not be TypoScript/TSConfig but XML for example 
> there would be two completly different shemas or DTDs.
> Ppl would maybe call it the BE-DTD and the FE-DTD and wouldn't think 
> about putting them together because they would know that's it's not the 
> same just because both is XML.

Perhaps, provided that they know what a DTD is, which, for example Clare 
, might not know.

> So, I guess, one very important part of increasing the usability of 
> TypoScript & Co. is to check the wording and the documentation.
>

Yes, +100

Prosit, Uschi

>>> There is only one common ground between TS and TSConfig: the Syntax. 
>>> Maybe in some documentations it should be made more clear that TS and 
>>> TSConfig are different things, even if they have the same syntax.
>>>>
>>>> Plus: if the TS of the page properties is meant for BE 
>>>> configuration, why does an extension template (FE, correct?) have a 
>>>> field called "Backend Editor Configuration"?
>>
>>> Did you ever read the context sensitive help to this field? ;-). It 
>>> says: "Editor Configuration for the stylesheet editor extension."
>>> So: It has nothing to do with TSConfig, probably nor with Typoscript 
>>> ;-).
>>
>> A wording problem again. Perhaps the title of the field could be 
>> changed to "Stylesheet Editor Configuration"?
>>
> +1
> 
> Greets: Irene