Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72449 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 14991 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2014 23:31:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Feb 2014 23:31:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.204 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.204 mail4.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.204] ([217.147.176.204:59961] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id DD/2B-57220-56169F25 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:31:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 11913 invoked by uid 89); 10 Feb 2014 23:31:46 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 11907, pid: 11910, t: 0.0583s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52 Received: from unknown (HELO linux-dev4.lsces.org.uk) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 10 Feb 2014 23:31:46 -0000 Message-ID: <52F9622B.9090505@lsces.co.uk> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:35:07 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] No PHP tags From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: >> I sooo much don't care. But with the many downsides in mind I'd keep it. > > Could you list them up so that I may address issues? > I agree with Rasmus that having 2 parsing modes is problematic. > Other than that, I don't see serious downsides. I though https://wiki.php.net/rfc/source_files_without_opening_tag just about summed it up? From RFC > If you are curious about this reputation, search CVE for number of PHP LFI Given the substantial difference between the number of sites running PHP and other languages is it really surprising that it gets the most attention? This is just another 'education' problem rather than ini proliferation one! The 'Modern Frameworks' who might use it have already removed the problem other ways, so why do they need it? The ones that might benefit from it will never switch it off anyway, so what use is it? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk