harp js seems to be a very useful tool to me.
they suppor ejs compile,but, I didn't find how to get the ejs custom delimiters function support.
I want to replace <% %> with new tokens such as {{}}.
This hasn’t been made configurable within Harp, sorry. We do our best to set useful defaults rather than making everything configurable, so you don’t have to worry about setting things up. It also means that boilerplates, docs, and blog posts will still be relevant for anyone using EJS.
If it’s really necessary for your particular project, and you would still like to use Harp, you could fork Terraform (Harp’s pre-processing engine) and modify the settings, but personally I would recommend just using the default delimiters.
Related
I have a custom extension, and i need to use some form of text editor in the front-end. According to the documentation, it should be possible, but the documentation and tutorials seem to be deprecated. I think this is not available in typo3 7.6 :
require_once(t3lib_extMgm::extPath('rtehtmlarea').'pi2/class.tx_rtehtmlarea_pi2.php');
Can it be done somehow or do i need to install another extension for this, maybe just a viewhelper? Thank you in advance.
I did lots of researches trying to use the rtehtmlarea in the FE, but failed. Then, I realized I could use any RTE, as they are nothing but js+css. All I need is to render the contents with RTE.FE, like how the BE does, and save the result into the database, which is all I want. I have already done this in many sites, using standalone tinymce, and it works great. So, I think maybe you could try this solution.
To be honest, that feature worked only in theory and never in reality. Use an RTE like ckeditor or whatever fits best
I've created a Confluence blueprint plugin as per the basic/intermediate/advanced tutorials available from Atlassian. I now want to update the page template to include a {HTML} macro with embedded CDATA, where a URL in that CDATA contains a portion to be substituted with user-entered data.
What I'd ideally like to do, with the <at:var...> being substituted with locationid:
<ac:structured-macro ac:name="html">
<ac:plain-text-body>
<![CDATA[<iframe src="http://...?locationid=<at:var at:name="locationid"/>"></iframe>]]>
</ac:plain-text-body>
</ac:structured-macro>
Unfortunately this does not work; the <at:var at:name="..."> inside CDATA can't be substituted.
I've tried various formats of this, for example substituting in the entire CDATA string itself, even going as far as substituting in the entire <ac:structured-macro> block in a single string. None work.
A Google search brought up two very similar questions on the Atlassian community wiki, this and this. Furthermore I found a Confluence Server JIRA to fix this problem, but it's been rejected and closed.
Despite the evidence against a solution I'm hoping that someone creative has an idea of how I can achieve this?
Atlassian SDK: 6.2.14
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking ;) but could it be the same as this discussion in our doc space?
Confluence 4.3-RC1 Release Notes
Up to now, I used to use template auto-parser. I like the fact I can modify any element of the template using typoscript, without altering the initial HTML file. I also like the fact that I can render the html template directly in a web browser, filling it with dummy elements to see examples of menus and content elements. Finally, with the new backend templates, i now can place content elements anywhere on a grid, in a way that mimics the real aspect of the website.
I know there is also TemplaVoila. I never took the time to learn it. My feeling is that it is less compatible with some extensions, but maybe I am wrong.
Now, there is fluid, that will be used in the next version of Typo3. While it is clear that it is better using it that using template markers, I don't really understand why I should be better using Fluid than using template auto-parser or TemplaVoila. What I dislike is the fact it requires to modify the html template with special tags, meaning that either the web designer has to know Fluid, or the Typo3 integrator has to modify templates from the designer each time a modification is performed.
My question is: should I migrate form template auto-parser to Fluid for my website template? What are the benefits of using Fluid? Why should it be better? What template system should I use with Typo3?
As long as TypoScript does not support objects, the benefits of FLUIDTEMPLATE over template auto-parser are only a few. So there is no need to migrate.
But IMHO there are some arguments to switch to fluid:
more and more extensions will use fluid, so it will help you to learn fluid
you can use an ide with code-completion for fluid (it is just XML!)
fluid is really powerfull, you can have f.e. if statements which checks for empty content
some day TypoScript will support objects as well
But for extension developement, it is totally different. In an Extension, i would allways prefere using FLUID. You do not have to deal with template things inside your extension anymore. Just pass the data to fluid and things which concern the view will be done in your template.
Whever you choose, it should be something based on Fluid - this will allow you to be extremely versatile and it makes the implementation less important than the template, which is quite good.
I myself am the creator of the "Fluid Powered TYPO3" framework (formerly known as FED) and would of course recommend that you take a look at what this framework can do for you - it's capable of great things, not the least of which is saving you a lot of time while at the same time allowing you to create even more consistent templating for pages and content - and even backend modules.
And we're always happy to help new users. We are currently in the process of improving our documentation, but you can already find many fully up-to-date guides on our Github page - https://github.com/FluidTYPO3 - the repository called "documentation" is the place we will store all the documentation.
You may want to have a look at http://fedext.net http://fluidtypo3.org - especially the "Tour of features" which tries to explain the point of Fluid Powered TYPO3 in as few words as possible. After that, the examples from the documentation will give you a much clearer picture of what Fluid Powered TYPO3 can do for you.
We focus on efficiency always - we've tried to do all the heavy lifting so that you really can just sit down and begin creating page templates. We took a lot of inspiration from TemplaVoila but there is no more re-mapping of content and things like this: when you change your templates, that change is immediately reflected, which makes it very nice to work with in iterations and do things like continuous delivery and -integration.
Hopefully this helps!
Cheers,
Claus aka. NamelessCoder
You could also argue, that adding special tags like
<f:section name="typo-content">
<div id="content">This is where the designer intended content to go</<div>
</f:section>
Could assist your designer while doing a redesign to know where you "mapped" your content elements to. This is neither the case with autoparser nor with TemplaVoila. So if the designer moves stuff around you probably get your templates back and they still work without any modifications.
I get the following errors from the Google Rich Snippet Tool for my website http://iancrowther.co.uk/
hcard
Warning: This information will not appear as a rich snippet in search results results, because it seems to describe an organization. Google does not currently display organization information in rich snippets
Warning: At least one field must be set for Hcard.
Warning: Missing required field "name (fn)".
Im experimenting with vcard and Schema.org and am wondering if I'm missing something or the validator is playing up. I have added vcard and Schema.org markup to the body which may be causing confusion. Also, I am making the assumption I can use both methods to markup my code.
Update:
I guess with the body tag, I'm just trying to let Google discover the elements which make up the schema object within the page. I'm not sure if this is a good / bad way to approach things? However it lets my markup be free of specific blocks of markup. I guess this is open to discussion but I like the idea of having a natural flow to the content that's decorated in the background. Do you think there is any negative impact? I'm undecided.
I am in favour of the Person structure, this was a good call as this is more representative of the current site content. I am a freelance developer and as such use this page as my Organisation landing page, so I guess I have to make a stronger decision of the sites goals and tailor the content accordingly, ie Organisation or Person.
I understand that there is no immediate rich snippet gains, but im a web guy so have a keen interest in these kind of things.
With schema testing, I find it easiest to start from the most obvious problem, and try to work our way deeper from there. Note, I have zero experience with hcard, but I don't believe the error you mentioned actually has anything to do with your hcard properties.
The most obvious problem I see, is that your body tag has an itemtype of schema.org\Organization. When you set an itemtype on a dom element, you are saying that everything inside of that element is going to help describe that itemtype. Since you've placed this on your body element, you are quite literally telling Google that your entire page is about an organization.
From the content of your page, I would recommend changing that itemtype to schema.org\Person. This would seem to be a more accurate description. Once you make that change and run the scanner again, you may see more errors relating to the schema and we can work through those too (for example, you'll probably need to set familname and givenName).
With all of that said, you should know that currently there are no rich snippets that you will gain from adding this schema data. Properly setting this up on your page, is only good to do, especially since we don't know what rich snippets Google or others will expose in the future, but currently you won't see any additional rich snippets in Google search results from adding these tags. I don't want to discourage you from setting this up properly but I just want to set your expectations.
I've currently got TinyMCE incorporated into the backend editor of a simple blogging/page-editing app, but I'm extremely unhappy with the HTML code it creates. It does all sorts of messy things like:
Adding inline style information to span tags that you can't ever find to get rid of without editing the HTML directly.
Nesting tags in nonsense ways (e.g. <p><strong><p><span>some text</span></p><strong></p> just to make something bold.)
Adding empty <p> </p> lines where they don't belong and I'm not trying to create blank lines.
EDIT: I've looked at lists of the other editors out there (including on SO), but I want to know if people firsthand have had better luck getting clean code out of their wysiwyg editors.
Any recommendations for one that outputs better code behind the scenes?
How about a rather drastic alternative, and using a WYMIWYG (What You Mean is What You Get) editor rather that another WYSIWYG editor. That way the author is in full control of the schematic markup as well as the content he/she is entering.
Unfortunately I haven't found one that is as feature rich and usable as tinyMCE, but it seems to have come a long way - see http://www.wymeditor.org/demo/
Use HTML purifier before saving the content into the database.
HTML Purifier
I found JoomlaFCK to be a very good alternative to Tiny MCE.
Hope you like it.
bye
BTW I know it is an old thread but someone might use it. ;)