Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59556
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)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F834D82.4030601@developersdesk.com>
References: <CAORXhGJwmbjw3Zze3+-oFA2Mb_Z-2owVESraNMMs57RzjRRMbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<-5877502932356715576@unknownmsgid>
	<CAORXhGLPdAie6UFq+daJhUmDUqp7RaFFLa596XdzdtuCddf0Jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<-3647345967307864634@unknownmsgid>
	<CAORXhGKjg_L11dFGNHNfNygDH018=ZhytAy1vH+Ei8QHfry=cA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhG+K3XML-47+FDYdL5D717wDX7c59Pz8KgqjcP16+Ad12w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F831FAE.2030208@ralphschindler.com>
	<4775322189440202047@unknownmsgid>
	<CAORXhGJSG6CJD5EAt_uZ7RjfjM345nfrVQz8t2ep4e3WhCeKMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F833682.2000301@ralphschindler.com>
	<CAGa2bXYjJsfo6os_P1OvQ7jfmxeYUkZ+QK5r94nwNUsba-iWLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F833AB0.2060306@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAGa2bXa4U3ar2REYahyt_0pJH=mjNjvHUhmHpxL+Qkdy3tUZFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F8340E6.90005@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAGa2bXY0fXX_SSYtsdw2xVqE=V6t+8B_-daPo5YrRd6E_HuPfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSz2oTBCdgxsCBoeDUJaG=hA9Hx-S6jMJ7rtqcn1hbEnAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F834D82.4030601@developersdesk.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:06:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSxRp9+-eFtf4E_7ncGtjfNWFxo43LpU1D7pYZQHWSgyQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rick WIdmer <vchkpw@developersdesk.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04447f475458ea04bd4560ec
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: source files without opening tag
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d04447f475458ea04bd4560ec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Rick WIdmer <vchkpw@developersdesk.com>wrote:

> On 4/9/2012 2:41 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>>
>>>  Honestly, I would suggest just getting rid of "Option 1" altogether.  It
>> would end up over-complicating this to such a degree that any usefulness
>> it
>> might serve would be considerably diminished.
>>
>> As for embedded HTML, if you allow the ?>  tag in these .phpp files, then
>> that pretty much negates the entire purpose of having them to begin with.
>> Essentially, you'd just be changing it so that, instead of defaulting to
>> "?>" when no tag is present, it defaults to"<?php".  I just don't see any
>> value in that as a developer.
>>
>> A developer should *not* be including in a .phpp file classes that contain
>>
>> HTML within the ?>  tag, period.  If they need to include something that
>> has
>> that, they should do it in a regular .php file.  An "HTML-less" PHP file
>> needs to be exactly that; no direct HTML allowed.  Otherwise, the RFC is
>> completely and utterly pointless IMHO.
>>
>>
>> I think this would be awesome for PHP 6, but I'll have to vote against it
>> if you settle on using "Option 1" and/or allow ?>  content to be
>> embedded/included in .phpp files.  If we differentiate based solely on the
>> file extension and keep ?>  tags out of it, then I'll definitely support
>> it!
>>
>
>
>
> Please forget about file extensions.  PHP should not consider file
> extensions.  The only reason .php files are executed by PHP is because the
> web browser is configured to pass that extension to PHP rather than handle
> it internally.
>
>
> I sincerely hope that any suggestion to eliminate the ability to use PHP
> as a template engine will be met with a veto by the core developers, or
> maybe even another suggestion by the trademark owner of PHP that he will
> not allow the PHP name to be used on such a language.


That's a bit harsh, don't you think?  I mean, it seems a little premature
to be talking about bringing forth IP litigation to stop an RFC that's
still being drafted.

--Kris

--f46d04447f475458ea04bd4560ec--