Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:44186
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain roshambo.org from 209.85.198.230 cause and error)
Cc: Hannes Magnusson <hannes.magnusson@gmail.com>,
 Roman I <isroman@km.ru>,
 internals internals <internals@lists.php.net>,
 Stanislav Malyshev <stas@php.net>
Message-ID: <CB583D3F-03DD-4BF8-B3E6-8EB8630BB00C@roshambo.org>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A28CEE4.10403@lerdorf.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:45:56 -0700
References: <94.6F.05315.44EF11A4@pb1.pair.com>	 <77E6891A-AF77-47B5-94DB-FA69D4F7F198@roshambo.org>	 <DF.60.63575.1ED812A4@pb1.pair.com>	 <A52B781A-28BD-4609-811A-9C014E58F9F9@roshambo.org>	 <B5.6A.44672.BD4982A4@pb1.pair.com> <4A28B16A.2040101@lerdorf.com> <7f3ed2c30906050043g3f014e63j6f74abb1f04373b0@mail.gmail.com> <4A28CEE4.10403@lerdorf.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Is there a technical reason <?= considered a "short tag"?
From: philip@roshambo.org (Philip Olson)


On Jun 5, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

> Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 07:47, Rasmus Lerdorf<rasmus@lerdorf.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> Nobody is going to pass a PHP script through an XML parser, and PHP
>>> itself will never be well-formed, so that is a lost cause.  We'd  
>>> have to
>>> start tossing CDATA blocks and write code like:
>>>
>>> if( 2 &lt; 3 ) echo "2 is less than 3";
>>
>> No you don't. & and < are perfectly legal in PIs
>>
>>
>>> And that just isn't going to happen.  The only valid argument  
>>> against
>>> short_tags itself is that it clashes with named PI tags and <?=  
>>> does not
>>> have that same problem.
>>
>> <?= is not a valid target name either, so it has the same problem.
>>
>> 4]   	NameStartChar	   ::=   	":" | [A-Z] | "_" | [a-z] | [#xC0-#xD6]
>> | [#xD8-#xF6] | [#xF8-#x2FF] | [#x370-#x37D] | [#x37F-#x1FFF] |
>> [#x200C-#x200D] | [#x2070-#x218F] | [#x2C00-#x2FEF] | [#x3001-#xD7FF]
>> | [#xF900-#xFDCF] | [#xFDF0-#xFFFD] | [#x10000-#xEFFFF]
>
> The point still stands.  If you are trying to parse PHP with an XML
> parser, you are doing it wrong.  I have absolutely no problems  
> annoying
> the one or two pedantic people who care about this for the benefit of
> thousands who don't.

The RFC was marked declined due to repeated discussions and lack of  
change, but declined without much fanfare or official yay or nay  
discussion aside from a mention in a recent related thread, IRC, and  
CVS.

So it feels like decoupling <?= from short_open_tag is on the table.  
Rasmus or Stas, could you please propose exactly how this might  
happen? Like when, and if the fate of short_open_tag would be affected  
(which is never deprecate nor disable by default).

And while few want to talk about short tags (again), it's worth noting  
that a discussion specific to decoupling really hasn't taken place  
except for silence and a few "yeah, that might be alright... sometime"

Regards,
Philip