Talk:TYPO3: Difference between revisions
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 90d) to Talk:TYPO3/Archive 1. |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
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. --[[User:Jesus Presley|Jesus Presley]] ([[User talk:Jesus Presley|talk]]) 21:08, 31 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. --[[User:Jesus Presley|Jesus Presley]] ([[User talk:Jesus Presley|talk]]) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
== End of maintenance for 4.5 LTS? == |
|||
[http://www.typo3.org/download typo3.org/download] clearly says 4.5 LTS (long term support) will be supported to April 2014 (2014-04), not October 2014. If that is incorrect, please provide some source of information! /[[User:PatrikN|PatrikN]] ([[User talk:PatrikN|talk]]) 06:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:October is correct. TYPO3 6.2 will be the next LTS version. In order to get a longer upgrading timeframe for users (and agencies as well), lifetime for 4.5 LTS has been extended by 6 months. Should the download page not yet reflect that, please open an issue in the t3o tracker so that a member with the appropriate rights can update the page. However, I personally don't see that as highest prio right now. Providing a timeframe on t3o which in fact is too short is not ideal, but it is not ''that'' bad either. If we instead gave a longer timeframe than there actually would be support, then this would be really bad. People might end up with insecure systems, probably having to pay additional upgrading fees etc. That would be even worse. --[[Special:Contributions/88.130.106.98|88.130.106.98]] ([[User talk:88.130.106.98|talk]]) 02:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== PHP compatibility chart? == |
== PHP compatibility chart? == |
||
Revision as of 23:52, 15 March 2013
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the TYPO3 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
"NPOV: 'one of the leading...'"
First sentence of this entry is derived from TYPO3's marketing materials (via Google search) and is clearly NOT from a NPOV (plus factually quite questionable). Very close to deletable as an advertisement with this lead??
CMS/CMF is industry jargon, with no clear distinction between the two; at the time of release, 'CMS'es were arguably very hard for a non-developer to build upon; and TYPO3 is listed as a CMS by CMSWatch, so I'm not sure there's any way to further clarify in this article.68.217.153.207 (talk)
FrankyBkk: I am new here and hope that I do not break any rule here. But I want to tell you that I think that the TYPO3 article was for me very informative. And that TYPO3 is one of the leading CMS is just the Truth. What you expect that they write instead? TYPO3 is a CMS and that was it? It have in my opinion nothing to do with marketing, specially because TYPO3 is under the GNU Licence and totaly for free. To say that TYPO3 is one of the leading CMS'es is just a information for the reader. If they would say that they are THE leading CMS then would it be in my opinion a break of rules. I think that it is much more important to give a lot of informations to the readers of the Best Online Encyclopdia on earth as to look into every word that it is conform with the rules. Oops, I think it is not allowed to say that Wikipedia is the best one?
I think it is just not fair to delete this sentence.
FrankyBkk (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
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:
Design: Rename to "Architecture" and merge updated information from the Funktion und Architektur part from de.WPCLA 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.Translate & insert the version history table.- [EDIT] Briefly explain the caching framework
- Briefly mention the 1-2-3 installer
- 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)
PHP compatibility chart?
I came to this page because of this link:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12910209/what-php-version-is-supported-by-which-typo3-release
I've tried hard to find that info on the typo3 website, but failed. It would be a great addition to include this table here 84.154.126.84 (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)