Guys,
I'd like to revert the fix for bug #31672 ("</script> is not considered
closing tag if preceded by one-line comment"). While theoretically
correct, I'd rather resolve it by fixing the docs.
The reason is simple - unlike ?> and %>, the string "</script>" is very
much likely to appear inside one line comments:
// print "<script>foo</script>";
That suddenly fails. That's probably the reason we didn't implement it in
the first place.
Any objections to reverting this fix?
Zeev
Good point, +1 for revert.
Ilia
Zeev Suraski wrote:
Guys,
I'd like to revert the fix for bug #31672 ("</script> is not considered
closing tag if preceded by one-line comment"). While theoretically
correct, I'd rather resolve it by fixing the docs.The reason is simple - unlike ?> and %>, the string "</script>" is very
much likely to appear inside one line comments:// print "<script>foo</script>";
That suddenly fails. That's probably the reason we didn't implement it
in the first place.Any objections to reverting this fix?
Zeev
I very much agree with this. It's very common to output JavaScript via
PHP, and that also uses the <script></script> tags...so...
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Good point, +1 for revert.
Ilia
Zeev Suraski wrote:
Guys,
I'd like to revert the fix for bug #31672 ("</script> is not
considered closing tag if preceded by one-line comment"). While
theoretically correct, I'd rather resolve it by fixing the docs.The reason is simple - unlike ?> and %>, the string "</script>" is
very much likely to appear inside one line comments:// print "<script>foo</script>";
That suddenly fails. That's probably the reason we didn't implement
it in the first place.Any objections to reverting this fix?
Zeev
Hello Zeev,
i do not think this is a good excuse for ignoring xml compliance.
marcus
Monday, March 7, 2005, 3:10:57 PM, you wrote:
Guys,
I'd like to revert the fix for bug #31672 ("</script> is not considered
closing tag if preceded by one-line comment"). While theoretically
correct, I'd rather resolve it by fixing the docs.
The reason is simple - unlike ?> and %>, the string "</script>" is very
much likely to appear inside one line comments:
// print "<script>foo</script>";
That suddenly fails. That's probably the reason we didn't implement it in
the first place.
Any objections to reverting this fix?
Zeev
--
Best regards,
Marcus mailto:helly@php.net
At 20:38 07/03/2005, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Zeev,
i do not think this is a good excuse for ignoring xml compliance.
I don't exactly follow what you're saying - can you elaborate?
Zeev
Hello Zeev,
Tuesday, March 8, 2005, 7:27:31 AM, you wrote:
At 20:38 07/03/2005, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Zeev,
i do not think this is a good excuse for ignoring xml compliance.
I don't exactly follow what you're saying - can you elaborate?
I do not see any reason to make php a proprietary format ignoring xml rules
just to allow some stupid simplification which is not needed at all. Every
one that uses java script and and some server based scripting language knows
that it is impossible to write closing tags completley into echo/print
statements. Thus i suggesst we reintroduce the patch and live with the fact
that we need to write echo "<"."/script>" instead of echo "</script>".
--
Best regards,
Marcus mailto:helly@php.net