Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52463
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=vJcis0lqT4yuWdhDYvDN4ea6guSWIfBa7Yh0t+l21f3poW3Rk061cDO3e6EI1I/uyk
         NSKSD/E/xmH8xNzpLjA+wHXN6PeKtyslglP/rYPwGAqqkQqLE8NNxgyQElPv8jPuKyGR
         mk97eQtWZmtjWD0XEcUwRHVR4taNf6P1jQ/cw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4DD538B1.1070205@cubiclesoft.com>
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>
	<49E47BF2.3090807@gmail.com>
	<9b3df6a50904140811o6d57a426gd320a822271e19f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<F1CC660D-2FAC-422B-8739-844E0D8F01D7@bitextender.com>
	<49E4CE2D.7010402@zend.com>
	<3B1B513E-2712-40C4-AC20-4A21EB039629@roshambo.org>
	<BANLkTin+C7vMC8NpcUZP3ZR3zrpUDR5nVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D1369A8-0154-4E34-9069-27AB267AE06F@roshambo.org>
	<4DD464C2.4060407@lerdorf.com>
	<4DD47AEA.1080306@sugarcrm.com>
	<BANLkTimfdwhveeQ=u7ZmdSMTWHw+FCEsBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinJKFsDT1UdOEbb1wkJJOL1FzVa_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimgn0cMinVL10FP+SgX+5m8dU6psA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimhp1a577Tyj3Ys55tCsGTri_0PCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD538B1.1070205@cubiclesoft.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 11:48:32 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTim9TwnbmghnG6e1azC0Xv8bwXZh_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e644ccd4f78a2704a3a2ef1a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Is it true that short_open_tag is deprecated in PHP 6?
From: dmgx.michael@gmail.com (Michael Morris)

--0016e644ccd4f78a2704a3a2ef1a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Something I would add to this - I personally do use short tags in an open
source project because mod_rewrite functionality, implemented either at the
.htaccess level or at the httpd.config level. In either event, if you can
use mod_rewrite, setting the php flag for short tags is trivial so I know it
will be available.  It's simply not possible (that I know of) to config a
server such that mod_rewrite is available and php_flags short_open_tags will
not be.

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Thomas Hruska <thruska@cubiclesoft.com>wrote:

> On 5/19/2011 12:23 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
>
>> It's essentially the same what I said - move it out of stort_tags and
>> make it "On" permanently.
>>
>> As I remember the decision to remove short_tags was made together with
>> register_globals, magic_quotes and other legacy stuff. I can be that I
>> remember wrongly, but really do people really use<% ?
>>
>
> Would be **really** nice if '<?' with a whitespace as the next byte was
> also detected (i.e. '<? ', '<?\n', etc).  (Single-quotes have been added to
> aid readability.)
>
> The '<? ' short tag is syntactic sugary convenience that is **widely**
> used:  Internal corporate servers, personal machines, and millions upon
> millions of websites.  The results and financial costs of cleaning up the
> upgrade fallout of removing the '<? ' short tag are incalculable.
>
> Comparing short tags to magic_quotes/register_globals is apples to oranges.
>  The two are so vastly different and not in the same class. The latter is a
> failed security measure.  The former is a syntactic sugary convenience.
>  Every PHP userland developer I know understands the risks associated with
> magic_quotes and register_globals but, at the same time, they use the '<? '
> short tag extensively wherever possible.
>
> Or, perhaps more simply put:  If you remove the "syntactic sugary
> convenience" of the '<? ' short tag, you'll have an army of developers
> dropping by shortly after the release of PHP 6 and they will be incredibly
> unhappy.  But you just go ahead and remove the '<? ' short tag for PHP 6.
>  You'll be adding it back into PHP 6.0.1.
>
> The ONLY reason anyone types '<?php ' in the first place is because  '<? '
> isn't guaranteed to work everywhere.  And that rule really only applies to
> open source software and certain web hosts, which is a very small segment of
> the total PHP market share.  It would probably be fine if you removed the
> _option_ itself but merged '<? ' detection into the core.  I don't know
> anyone who uses anything but '<? ', so it won't likely be a huge loss for
> anyone if '<% ' support is dropped (but I could be wrong about that).
>
> The important part of this discussion is making sure convenient
> functionality doesn't just vanish for stupid reasons.  I recognize there
> will be breakage regardless because it is a new major version, but looking
> ahead one extra byte isn't going to kill you.
>
> --
> Thomas Hruska
> CubicleSoft President
>
> Barebones CMS is a high-performance, open source content management system
> for web developers operating in a team environment.
>
> An open source CubicleSoft initiative.
> Your choice of a MIT or LGPL license.
>
> http://barebonescms.com/
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--0016e644ccd4f78a2704a3a2ef1a--