Talk:TYPO3

To-Do: Update several sections

I just discovered how big the differences between this and the german version are. I already updated the TypoScript section, but I think that several other parts need maintenance. The de.WP version is very thorough, while the english one misses a lot of valuable facts. So...my suggestions:

1. Design: Rename to "Architecture" and merge updated information from the Funktion und Architektur part from de.WP
2. CLA for TYPO3 version 5: Why is the CLA mentioned with a whole paragraph, although TYPO3 5 (TYPO3 Phoenix) hasn't been mentioned before? Suggestion: Label the paragraph TYPO3 v6 / Phoenix, add information about v6, why it is special and mention CLA briefly.
3. Translate & insert the version history table.
4. [EDIT] Briefly explain the caching framework
5. Briefly mention the 1-2-3 installer
6. Insert section criticism (Too complex, need to learn TypoScript, cryptic etc.)

Any ideas or objections? --Jesus Presley (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: I added a lot of information. If someone could please check if the recently added sections are still complying with WP standards? As I use TYPO3 myself, some details might appear NPOV. --Jesus Presley (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

typoscript syntax highlighting lost

Since the switch from Geshi to Pygments for syntax highlighting (phab:T85794), support for 'typoscript' was unfortunately dropped, as can be seen with the plain text formatting on this page. If you want specialised 'typoscript' syntax highlight support again, it will need to be added to Pygments. Alternatively, if there is another language which has similar syntax, we can add that as a fallback. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, TypoScript support has been added to Pygments. It will most likely be released in Pygments 2.2 and be available for the syntax highlighting extension of MediaWiki once this extension has been updated to that new version of Pygments. I am using a self-compied Pygments wheel file myself, which already includes the new highlighter and I can confirm that the new highlighter fixes highlighting again. --87.123.54.224 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to split. A refund of the draft created by Kopfaufholz has been requested. Felix QW (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose that sections Neos be split into a separate page called Neos (content management). As the Neos section itself says: "In May 2015 the TYPO3 Association and the Neos team decided to go separate ways, with TYPO3 CMS remaining the only CMS product endorsed by the Association and the Neos team publishing Neos as a stand-alone CMS without any connection to the TYPO3 world." see https://typo3.org/news/article/typo3-project-focuses-on-typo3-cms-neos-to-start-its-own-community/

Neos is a separate project for 6 years now with regular releases and an annual conference and meetups which justifies an own article. Content for the splitted page is prepared as Draft:Neos_(content_management) but it was suggested to start the article as a split. The Neos contents cannot be added here first as it makes no sense to add the version history of Neos to a TYPO3 article.

Kopfaufholz (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed proposed split link AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom, it would be nice if the draft had better reliable sources, though. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 00:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support I know both projects. After six years of independent development it's time for independent pages Mateng (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting off Neos (content management)

@Kopfaufholz, CanadianOtaku, and Mateng: After closing the splitting discussion, I have obtained a refund of the draft. However, I am also concerned about the lack of reliable sources or reviews, although in fairness the current section on Neos on this page is in no way better. Felix QW (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)