Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:28835 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 73270 invoked by uid 1010); 14 Apr 2007 18:53:56 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 73254 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2007 18:53:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Apr 2007 18:53:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=nicobn@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=nicobn@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 66.249.92.175 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: 66.249.92.175 ug-out-1314.google.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from [66.249.92.175] ([66.249.92.175:51503] helo=ug-out-1314.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E8/13-34376-24321264 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:53:54 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id o4so687393uge for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:53:51 -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=VlBYS1Aj+jWjpKHm5BPLaknvNkT97TjkmosLN43iyH2GJazcboIAp4Q5N/nrxYKJhQfGmpqUwFqQk57u2+x+fgz57cD6g5r3uIuMLsBin8FaUIynHfN7ceEIhLXQCtFp+va2rkEEb54udT0s6E84PDuGc9SsQfIAFvivYmmN45Y= 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=j28bEcGc4oP327TWjW/MpGoOMtd+UI6oIcFrL9mgoLN82znJ/sP3z+qzDRfWdXXW24LWqotiYLU0+AGeXQI5kuhxaHACa5WlZ86USrDG42JwjBl60Nfcef1EPmNcfx/3pS2YcJqerYr5wM3vZYhoHjkg1T40qhYiGhyHPF1BOl0= Received: by 10.82.148.7 with SMTP id v7mr1047060bud.1176576831473; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.170.8 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <30bd80240704141153p6cabee13tbd885a342f8bf07c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:53:51 -0400 To: "Rasmus Lerdorf" Cc: "Bart de Boer" , "Tijnema !" , "Guilherme Blanco" , ceo@l-i-e.com, "Chad Daelhousen" , "Ron Korving" , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <4621195A.2010404@lerdorf.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_15018_17592920.1176576831114" 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> <4621195A.2010404@lerdorf.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] dropping asp_tags in HEAD From: nicobn@gmail.com ("=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nicolas_A._B=E9rard-Nault?=") ------=_Part_15018_17592920.1176576831114 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I think Rasmus summarized pretty well the essence of the initial decision that was made to include short tags. After getting all these precisions, I'= m more inclined to the statut quo side, not that my opinion really matters, but I just feel there is no consensus right now and that this discussion runs into an obvious dead-end. What are we gaining by removing short tags ? Obviously nothing. What are we losing ? A lot of people demonstrated the usefulness, may it be limited, of the asp/short tags hence I feel we will lose something. Purity in itself may be an argument, but not in a language that deems itsel= f pragmatic. My 2 cents. On 4/14/07, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > 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. > > If you pick your standards carefully, sure. ;) > > I chose the PHP syntax before there was an XML spec. Back in the dark > ages where HTML was defined as an SGML DTD. In SGML-speak general delimiter called PIO, < is STAGO and > is PIC. In those early > HTML DTD's you couldn't have a PIO element that contained STAGO or PIC. > ISO-8879 has all the uglyness in it if you want to dig a bit, but even > with that it doesn't really tell the whole story of the conditions at > the time. > > The point being that it was a conscious decision to not try to strictly > comply with the specification at the time or to write a PHP DTD, but > instead to focus on convenience first and the spec second. You still > have plenty of things you can do today that doesn't match modern XML > specs. For example: > > '; ?> > > Or anything with ctrl chars in it. You can put a literal 0x07 char in a > quoted string, for example, and PHP will happily pass that through, but > that is also not allowed in the spec. > > -Rasmus > > -- > 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_15018_17592920.1176576831114--