Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:28820 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 2748 invoked by uid 1010); 14 Apr 2007 16:51:18 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 2733 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2007 16:51:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Apr 2007 16:51:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=nicobn@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=nicobn@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.134.191 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: nicobn@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.134.191 mu-out-0910.google.com Received: from [209.85.134.191] ([209.85.134.191:58412] helo=mu-out-0910.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 2F/2A-34376-38601264 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:51:16 -0400 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i10so1372492mue for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:51:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=aS4kAYCF7j0eBFnd+xvRz5xQV8jhQ9D4c6kclwg1eVy8pEPRWhvf7hKMENmo2hZGu5D1j1zhRdccPyDgA9tSVHHVXLPmsMWUsF46bj5OwvY53R9IHVxXwWzjws0Yq7zk35kerJa8wUdf4tmQQd1OC7voCY1yAaMgDV0iRwMF3G4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=HqFfhPwnea21xO+/oJDr3u7Pq2RMmzM+IEenX5jXCW+qHVkaXUgbWHQ2svPXKKfRL4iPioK/BjojYY9/Ckg6Eg4vGWfrQmuBFqvEIKAb1/2PB1ATPHaQeexqnSy1BOwoLnM3bfiEVHfKrCH7Zex9CmVTteADHH82TosiYYQ35jE= Received: by 10.82.163.13 with SMTP id l13mr929699bue.1176569472251; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.170.8 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <30bd80240704140951l565242ddvb0cdc5834f889ada@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:51:12 -0400 To: "Bart de Boer" Cc: "Rasmus Lerdorf" , "Tijnema !" , "Guilherme Blanco" , ceo@l-i-e.com, "Chad Daelhousen" , "Ron Korving" , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <4620F6B8.9080907@mediawave.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_13858_22020888.1176569472162" References: <461E894C.104@zend.com> <37936.216.230.84.67.1176500697.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> <46209A3F.8040701@mediawave.nl> <4620A3C1.8030701@mediawave.nl> <4620E566.8050300@lerdorf.com> <4620F6B8.9080907@mediawave.nl> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] dropping asp_tags in HEAD From: nicobn@gmail.com ("=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nicolas_A._B=E9rard-Nault?=") ------=_Part_13858_22020888.1176569472162 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Maybe I'm missing something here, but why should PHP be compliant with a standard that absolutely has nothing to do with the language (c.f.: XML) ? Isn't it obvious that a file with the extension .php is NOT an XML file ? I= t seems to me the short tags issue is starting to become a bikeshed argument... Again, sorry if I'm missing the point. On 4/14/07, Bart de Boer wrote: > > I feel I can't disagree with my hero. :) But is that really so? > > The XML spec says: > > PI ::=3D '' Char*)))? '?>' > > Doesn't Char* mean any char? > > All the parsers seem to accept '>' inside PI's without problems too. > > Furthermore... PHP may not be the most beautiful of languages... But > that doesn't mean it has to be ugly... > > > -Bart > > > Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > PHP was never meant to win any beauty contests, nor to enforce > > standards. If you want to take your argument to its logical conclusion > > then you have to also take the next step and not allow literal entities > > inside the PHP blocks, because that is also not standards compliant. > > That means you cannot write: > > > > 10) foo() ?> > > > > You would have to change it to: > > > > > > > > And that's just a simple example of that. > > > > -Rasmus > > > > Bart de Boer wrote: > > > >> And let me stress that this is something we're *forcing* people to do > >> when they're on a short tags enabled server... It's not something > >> they're allowed to do at free will... PHP's convention is currently > >> responsible for people creating non-standards-compliant documents... > And > >> I think we should take that responsibility and clean up the mess we > >> made... The XML spec is outside our scope... What's inside is > >> our business... > >> > >> > >> > >> Tijnema ! wrote: > >> > >>> On 4/14/07, Bart de Boer wrote: > >>> > >>>> I think ASP tags should go too... Simply because it's not standards > >>>> compliant and I think it's good if people are forced to make nice > >>>> standards compliant documents... I'd even go so far as to favor > dropping > >>>> short tags too... > >>>> > >>>> \n"; ?> > >>>> > >>>> What a mess!... > >>>> > >>> What about the even shorter version: > >>> \n"; ?> > >>> > >>> That's real ugly code... > >>> > >>> Tijnema > >>> > >>>> Guilherme Blanco wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I really can't see a reason to mantain ASP tags. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ok, short tags is good because of , but it doesn't > >>>>> behavior well with XML documents. So, if your intention is to chang= e > >>>>> short tags to ASP tag in a near future, ok. ASP tags does not mix > XML > >>>>> documents. > >>>>> Otherwise, ASP tags is the most useless thing I've ever heard in PH= P > >>>>> sphere. I really don't know why wasn't it dropped in PHP5. > >>>>> > >>>>> That's what I think... IMHO. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> []s, > >>>>> > >>>>> On 4/13/07, Tijnema ! wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 4/13/07, Richard Lynch wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, April 13, 2007 9:16 am, Tijnema ! wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I don't see why you are all against dropping the ASP tags. I see > >>>>>>>> people using ASP & PHP in one script, what would that do? If > >>>>>>>> > >>>> ASP runs > >>>> > >>>>>>>> first then there isn't a problem, but if PHP runs first, it woul= d > >>>>>>>> execute the ASP code. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There are actually people running both PHP and ASP in series to > >>>>>>> generate HTML? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If they are, they can turn ASP tags *OFF* in php.ini > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And they certainly aren't going to be distributing that setup > >>>>>>> > >>>> outside > >>>> > >>>>>>> their own little world... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> I've seen such code on the net some time ago... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But should you distribute PHP code with ASP tags? That's not good > >>>>>> either i think. So there's no use of the ASP tags, and they can > only > >>>>>> interfere with ASP. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tijnema > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > --=20 Nicolas B=E9rard-Nault (nicobn@gmail.com) =C9tudiant D.E.C. Sciences, Lettres & Arts C=E9gep de Sherbrooke Page personnelle: http://nicobn.googlepages.com ------=_Part_13858_22020888.1176569472162--