Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60294
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAORXhGLiyEO6XQTKb8uHiy1JwAU=UCTg32cP8fPeuN2pkPbSYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKOpQSw_sxFcY+1+7s-ZLeCp3Gf_kagztpaM7JSiG=iaOEWK6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL0xaBF1nPEjNPXfUqBMyj7vX-Wu4A4f-fT8gTFV7Y49SUHNrA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhGLiyEO6XQTKb8uHiy1JwAU=UCTg32cP8fPeuN2pkPbSYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:46:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSx7PtQbh5ie68zen+QNdSji+d5ZKAeqTGieLRoz1428Tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428ff4faaab804be73ae19
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pure PHP Scripts (Updated)
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d04428ff4faaab804be73ae19
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2012/4/24 Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>

> 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).
>

Hmm yeah I guess that wording is a bit sloppy, isn't it?  I'm not sure what
the "proper" terminology would be there.  Any suggestions?


>
> 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.
>

Partially correct.  That is the only practical difference, but I also added
clarifying language based on concerns raised here.  For example, I added a
section clarifying that the references to a file extension are merely a
convention and do not represent a new parsing method based on filename.  I
also added clarifications on how script inclusion would work vs. direct
access via URL on a webserver.


>
> 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 webserv=
er
> > to, in essence, "switch to PHP mode" and start parsing the data as PHP
> code.
> > 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
> file
> > 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
> concerns
> >> that have been raised about being able to implement this into existing
> >> frameworks that use a more "tangled" architecture.
> >>
> >> Thanks!  =3D)
> >>
> >> --Kris
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Tom Boutell
> P'unk Avenue
> 215 755 1330
> punkave.com
> window.punkave.com
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--f46d04428ff4faaab804be73ae19--