Question about fluid_styled_content requirement

[schloram]

Hi, currently I'm working on a headless TYPO3 website with EXT:headless installed. EXT:fluid_syteld_content is therefore unnecessary so I don't need to install it. But I also need EXT:mask. The idea is then to override the mask TypoScript as needed by EXT:headless to output the fields as json.

Unfortunately mask requires fluid_styled_content which means that it gets installed even though it is not needed in this case.

Couldn't the requirement of fluid_styled_content just be dropped? I don't really see the benefit of requiring fluid_styled_content because mask isn't even using the Layouts/Partials or the TypoScript of fluid_styled_content.

AFAIK requiring frontend would be sufficient. Or am I missing something crucial?

regards, R

[nhovratov]

fluid_styled_content is actually not a hard requirement, but it provides a TypoScript snippet for lib.parseFunc, which is necessary for proper richtext link parsing and such. So it is required for convenience reasons. Dropping it again would be breaking and requires a new major Mask release.

[nitori]

Hm seems like headless ships it's own parseFunc.

[nhovratov]

Yep, looks like 80% is the same as in Fluid Styled Content. The question is really whether everyone should ship his own ParseFunc. Mask also had an old copy of it until it faced some bugs, because it was outdated. This was the reason FSC was added as requirement, so I don't have to keep track of every change in this file.

[nitori]

The only thing I could think of is to not make fsc a hard requirement. As different extensions can ship their own parseFunc, the only requirement should (maybe) be "an extension with a lib.parseFunc definition", like fsc or headless. The bootstrap_package extension even conflicts with fsc (but I don't know if it even makes sense to use that one together with mask).

There is of course the "risk" that some user might forget to activate fsc?

[nhovratov]

Yes, most users "just install" Mask and expect it to work without any further steps besides maybe including the static template. If we drop the requirement, I have to document it somewhere. But most users don't read the documentation. I already can see issues like: "Links don't work in RTE with Mask elements" or similar. In all honesty, I rather have "experienced" users complain about the "unnecessary" installed fluid_styled_content extension, than unexperienced users struggling to understand why links don't work. I'm also an advocate for minimal setups and dropping dead code, but the main target audience for Mask are not hardcode TYPO3 developers who could also do everything by hand.