Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60292
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain punkave.com designates 209.85.160.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0xaBF1nPEjNPXfUqBMyj7vX-Wu4A4f-fT8gTFV7Y49SUHNrA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKOpQSw_sxFcY+1+7s-ZLeCp3Gf_kagztpaM7JSiG=iaOEWK6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL0xaBF1nPEjNPXfUqBMyj7vX-Wu4A4f-fT8gTFV7Y49SUHNrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:26:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAORXhGLiyEO6XQTKb8uHiy1JwAU=UCTg32cP8fPeuN2pkPbSYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pure PHP Scripts (Updated)
From: tom@punkave.com (Tom Boutell)

That's a good point, it should say the PHP tokenizer, or something to
that effect (folks who spend more time with the internals could say
better what to call it).

The major difference from his previous version of the RFC is his
addition of the .phpf format, which would allow including a .php file
with <?php and ?> in it from a .phpf file, but would not allow or need
any usage of <?php and ?> within the .phpf file itself.

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Arvids Godjuks
<arvids.godjuks@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as I read there is no difference from the previous RFC - it
> says essentially the same.
>
> " The <?php tag, contained within one of these files, tells the webserver
> to, in essence, "switch to PHP mode" and start parsing the data as PHP co=
de.
> When the ?> tag is reached, the webserver "switches back" and resumes
> parsing it as HTML. If no tags are given, the webserver will parse the fi=
le
> data as HTML code until a <?php tag is reached. "
>
> I'm I the only one who thinks that this is just plain wrong? I know for a
> fact that there is no "PHP mode" on the WEB server level. I think I
> understand what it tries to say, but I totally disagree with what is
> written and don't want to guess anything.
>
> 24 =C1=D0=D2=C5=CC=D1 2012 =C7. 22:52 =D0=CF=CC=D8=DA=CF=D7=C1=D4=C5=CC=
=D8 Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>=CE=C1=D0=C9=D3=C1=CC:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I finally found some time today to update the RFC based on discussions
>> here.  Please have a look and let me know if I missed anything or if
>> there's anything else that needs clarifying:
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpp
>>
>>
>> I also want to know if this is sufficient to satisfy some of the concern=
s
>> that have been raised about being able to implement this into existing
>> frameworks that use a more "tangled" architecture.
>>
>> Thanks!  =3D)
>>
>> --Kris
>>



--=20
Tom Boutell
P'unk Avenue
215 755 1330
punkave.com
window.punkave.com