Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36272 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 44650 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2008 20:13:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Mar 2008 20:13:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.198.184 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.198.184 rv-out-0910.google.com Received: from [209.85.198.184] ([209.85.198.184:59699] helo=rv-out-0910.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B8/B8-26785-3D614E74 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:13:08 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k15so910851rvb.23 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:13:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; 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:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=sQuFGszzUywp4GKClsDjitYAm7mJLk2i6zvwOFQtO6E=; b=tTZW1pZ+7lFcS6SE+GRPPus492Hpbknb7CbEXU9heVlQIqD4HBuh0hMuYsY4IrN1NmDzEnASWS2LMHALN15zlE/mJHxhx000a4lIQ1gvoRKa7qRbETBOj4t2SjoUpZxdEhaEPyzKZiRe79mkUOqtgmitBMgunkO/pl/TXFnh4bQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UKaSXVbufjEqo23KKaUnGQSeFTZfz9xBpRxBuF03sglsjdM028y/49P4zThSOU54Y7R+t0mMVBGrcUl8Lq7X9QlwUjFFczq+AIaM+wG+btKpE2fbTdbLx09Y6nZI1daodvNkeQSKoS8GEWGXFyBuK9tzC47txNOc9W8fNNYntdQ= Received: by 10.140.148.3 with SMTP id v3mr1611650rvd.71.1206130385518; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.116.12 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:13:05 +0100 To: "Stanislav Malyshev" Cc: jani.taskinen@iki.fi, "Marcus Boerger" , "PHP Internals" In-Reply-To: <47E4146A.8010409@zend.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <47E3F714.60302@zend.com> <883216194.20080321193140@marcus-boerger.de> <47E40848.1060103@zend.com> <47E40C3F.8040601@sci.fi> <47E40E6E.5030103@zend.com> <47E410C6.80605@sci.fi> <47E4146A.8010409@zend.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] short_open_tag From: pierre.php@gmail.com ("Pierre Joye") On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > No explanation why it "shows lazyness" or why it's bad except for > hinting it's somehow bad for handling XML (which it isn't). See below. > Should I go deeper? Did we use the same search engine? I'm still missing > explanation why short tags are bad. I gave you the link to one main explanation, the XML specs. Or what else do you need to explain the problem in the XML context? -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org