Feature #99316
closed
Epic #98134: Future of Content Elements in TYPO3
Move all Fluid Styled Content specific components to EXT:fluid_styled_content
Added by Lidia Demin almost 2 years ago.
Updated 3 months ago.
Category:
Fluid Styled Content
Description
Current state¶
The default CTypes and their rendering definition are shipped by Fluid Styled Content. But templating and configurations are spread across three system extensions:
- EXT:fluid_styled_content:
- TypoScript base rendering definition (lib.contentElement)
- TypoScript rendering definition (per CType)
- CType templates, layouts and partials
- EXT:frontend:
- Necessary tt_content fields (SQL)
- CType definitions in TCA
- TypoScript (tt_content = CASE)
- EXT:backend:
As described in the big vision #98134, all components related to Fluid Styled Content, should be moved to EXT:fluid_styled_content, so that it can be deprecated and moved to FriendsOfTYPO3 as an independent package later on.
- Parent task set to #98134
- Status changed from New to In Progress
- Assignee set to Lidia Demin
- Status changed from In Progress to Under Review
- Category set to Fluid Styled Content
- Status changed from Under Review to In Progress
- Status changed from In Progress to Under Review
- Assignee deleted (
Lidia Demin)
As it could be seen with the switch from CSC to FSC it's was quite useful that CTypes never have been bound to CSC but rather been independently.
I don't think that merging everything in FSC would be a good idea.
The controversial assumption that some some things belong to FSC can therefore be verified on the base if another rendering library could handle an element, or if the element is really so specific bound to FSC that it's reasonable to move it in the FSC extension. Having seen the Patch it seems that rather all CEs shall be moved to FSC, which--like explained--would remove all useful definitions when the rendering extension is changed. This would add an huge overhead task to implement different rendering, without offering benefits by moving definitions in FSC.
- Status changed from Under Review to Rejected
Closing this issue:
- We need to distinguish between the fields that all Content Types need ("bodytext" is quite common) and the actual CTypes.
- EXT:contentblocks is working on adding atomic versions, so just "moving" everything to FSC isn't the solution - at least right now.
Also available in: Atom
PDF
Updated by 
Updated by 
Updated by 
Updated by