Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:43695
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.179 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=cNdac4E1Hc7bnFOmjVvcBZid+AZ5AZaurMV+/Y7y+8DCaX/i4xwPciHS6+DpS0N7LW
         ooiSqDsbEjVomrX9Wz22K8P7HMVCAO/Upc3gtxF1fSbYmjll0O28/FszogArhidWmr3H
         /tv/mfU3A0J08etMX0AAEGpUuSs9uCJadVUiQ=
Message-ID: <49E47BF2.3090807@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:05:06 +0200
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Philip Olson <philip@roshambo.org>
CC: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>, 
 Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net>,
 Jeremy <jeremy@pinacol.com>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <49E352FD.6070008@gmail.com> <DB.C3.22673.B3373E94@pb1.pair.com> <2dedb8a0904131124u57f2f32ei27083a289f7f18a4@mail.gmail.com> <49E39B3C.2020401@zend.com> <ECCFDCE9-C262-49AC-A0E7-B24A2199A117@roshambo.org>
In-Reply-To: <ECCFDCE9-C262-49AC-A0E7-B24A2199A117@roshambo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Is it true that short_open_tag is deprecated in
 PHP 	6?
From: glen.84@gmail.com (Glen)

Thanks for the information, Philip.

I hereby summon the BDFL ... erm, no pressure. :-)

I really think ASP/JSP tags could be the answer.

Glen.

Philip Olson wrote:
>
> Today this topic may be the cloudiest and most heated in all of PHP.
> Here's the factual history of our poor little short_open_tag directive:
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> php.ini values : short_open_tag
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> PHP 4, 5_0
>  * Default behaviour   : on
>  * php.ini-dist        : on
>  * php.ini-recommended : on
>
> PHP 5_1, 5_2:
>  * Default behaviour   : on
>  * php.ini-dist        : on
>  * php.ini-recommended : off
>
> PHP 5_3:
>  * Default behaviour   : on
>  * php.ini-development : off
>  * php.ini-production  : off
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> php.ini descriptions : short_open_tag
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> In 5_2 our reason for discouraging it is:
>
> ; - short_open_tag = Off           [Portability]
> ;     Using short tags is discouraged when developing code meant for
> redistribution
> ;     since short tags may not be supported on the target server.
> ; Allow the <? tag. Otherwise, only <?php and <script> tags are
> recognized.
> ; NOTE: Using short tags should be avoided when developing
> applications or
> ; libraries that are meant for redistribution, or deployment on PHP
> ; servers which are not under your control, because short tags may not
> ; be supported on the target server. For portable, redistributable code,
> ; be sure not to use short tags.
>
> In 5_3 it's:
>
> ; This directive determines whether or not PHP will recognize code
> between
> ; <? and ?> tags as PHP source which should be processed as such. It's
> been
> ; recommended for several years that you not use the short tag "short
> cut" and
> ; instead to use the full <?php and ?> tag combination. With the wide
> spread use
> ; of XML and use of these tags by other languages, the server can
> become easily
> ; confused and end up parsing the wrong code in the wrong context. But
> because
> ; this short cut has been a feature for such a long time, it's
> currently still
> ; supported for backwards compatibility, but we recommend you don't
> use them.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> This history strongly suggests PHP is hoping and subtly forcing the
> world to stop using this directive, and although it's not deprecated
> the wording and treatment makes it feel it could be any day now. This
> situation must be clarified before 5_3 is released, and will likely
> require our BDFL to do it.
>
> In related news, what came of this RFC? It still says "Under Discussion":
>
>   - http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortags
>
> Regards,
> Philip
>
>
>