# Is it true that short_open_tag is deprecated in PHP 6? - Thread: https://externals.io/message/43676 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/43676 - Started by Glen on 2009-04-13T14:58:05+00:00 - Messages: 44 - Page 1 of 2: messages 1 to 25 (25 per page, add `?page=N` to the URL) - Next page: https://externals.io/message/43676.md?page=2 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #43676 — Glen — 2009-04-13T14:58:05+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43676 - http://www.slideshare.net/thinkphp/php-53-and-php-6-a-look-ahead - http://wiki.claroline.net/index.php/Coding_Rules If it's not, then what are your thoughts on using ASP/JSP-style tags (<%), and perhaps making them the recommended option? I've just read through an old (and rather long) thread* regarding short_open_tag, and no one mentioned this as an option. <%= $article->title; %> It's short, and it doesn't conflict with XML. Glen. * http://www.mail-archive.com/php-dev@lists.php.net/msg43002.html --- ## #43677 — Jeremy — 2009-04-13T17:15:33+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43677 · In reply to: #43676 Glen wrote: > > It's short, and it doesn't conflict with XML. > I have to say, I don't understand all the hate on short_open_tag. So what if it "conflicts" with XML? PHP is not XML. If you use an XML construct in your PHP, escape it. PHP can generate a lot of other languages, too -- should every construct from these languages be forbidden in PHP as well? Jeremy --- ## #43679 — Kalle Sommer Nielsen — 2009-04-13T18:24:02+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43679 · In reply to: #43677 2009/4/13 Jeremy : > Glen wrote: > > […] > > I have to say, I don't understand all the hate on short_open_tag.  So what > if it "conflicts" with XML?  PHP is not XML.  If you use an XML construct in > your PHP, escape it.  PHP can generate a lot of other languages, too -- > should every construct from these languages be forbidden in PHP as well? Thats because with short_open_tags on, you need to use: '); ?> to print the XML declaring, with short open tags, the xml part is considered a piece of code, which causes a syntax error > > Jeremy > > -- > > > > -- Kalle Sommer Nielsen kalle@php.net --- ## #43680 — James Logsdon — 2009-04-13T18:45:18+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43680 · In reply to: #43679 I think that's what he meant by "escape it". I haven't used short_open_tags myself much, but as I've been exploring templating options I like it for outputting variables. James Logsdon > 2009/4/13 Jeremy : > > […] > what > > […] > in > > […] > > Thats because with short_open_tags on, you need to use: > '); ?> > > to print the XML declaring, with short open tags, the xml part is > considered a piece of code, which causes a syntax error > > > […] > > > > -- > Kalle Sommer Nielsen > kalle@php.net --- ## #43681 — Glen — 2009-04-13T19:10:08+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43681 · In reply to: #43677 It was not my intention to initiate a massive debate regarding the use of short_open_tag. I posted for two reasons: 1. To ask if short_open_tag has been deprecated in PHP 6. 2. To suggest asp_tags as the recommended option for templating in PHP (to keep both crowds* happy). * The crowd *for* the use of short_open_tag (I don't believe that they are in favour of this tag because of the particular characters used, but rather because of its shortness), and the crowd *against* its use (believing that, since PHP's primary use is for embedding code within HTML documents, it should respect the use of other processing instructions). Glen. Jeremy wrote: > Glen wrote: > > […] > > I have to say, I don't understand all the hate on short_open_tag. So > what if it "conflicts" with XML? PHP is not XML. If you use an XML > construct in your PHP, escape it. PHP can generate a lot of other > languages, too -- should every construct from these languages be > forbidden in PHP as well? > > Jeremy --- ## #43682 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2009-04-13T20:06:20+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43682 · In reply to: #43679 Hi! > Thats because with short_open_tags on, you need to use: > '); ?> It's a pretty small use case (that's a problem only if you have xml documents which has to have php code which has to be inlined) and as you see, can be easily handled. I think that should not make whole very useful syntax deprecated. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com --- ## #43683 — Mike Panchenko — 2009-04-13T20:19:32+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43683 · In reply to: #43682 > It's a pretty small use case (that's a problem only if you have xml > documents which has to have php code which has to be inlined) and as you > see, can be easily handled. I think that should not make whole very useful > syntax deprecated. > +1 One of the reason's for PHP's success IMO is the ease of creating templates with it. Forcing everyone to write every time just just so that you don't have to write Hi! > > > […] > > It's a pretty small use case (that's a problem only if you have xml > documents which has to have php code which has to be inlined) and as > you see, can be easily handled. I think that should not make whole > very useful syntax deprecated. I think the parser should look ahead and check for something like : / tags are recognized. ; NOTE: Using short tags should be avoided when developing applications or ; libraries that are meant for redistribution, or deployment on PHP ; servers which are not under your control, because short tags may not ; be supported on the target server. For portable, redistributable code, ; be sure not to use short tags. In 5_3 it's: ; This directive determines whether or not PHP will recognize code between ; tags as PHP source which should be processed as such. It's been ; recommended for several years that you not use the short tag "short cut" and ; instead to use the full tag combination. With the wide spread use ; of XML and use of these tags by other languages, the server can become easily ; confused and end up parsing the wrong code in the wrong context. But because ; this short cut has been a feature for such a long time, it's currently still ; supported for backwards compatibility, but we recommend you don't use them. ------------------------------------------------ This history strongly suggests PHP is hoping and subtly forcing the world to stop using this directive, and although it's not deprecated the wording and treatment makes it feel it could be any day now. This situation must be clarified before 5_3 is released, and will likely require our BDFL to do it. In related news, what came of this RFC? It still says "Under Discussion": - http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortags Regards, Philip --- ## #43688 — Kenan Sulayman — 2009-04-13T22:48:29+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43688 · In reply to: #43687 Hey Guys, Whenever I start an XHTML document, I do escape it this way: <xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> Where the equals equals So, please do not deprecate it - because it's important for me :$ Thanks, (c) Kenan Sulayman Freelance Designer and Programmer Life's Live Poetry 2009/4/14 Philip Olson > > Today this topic may be the cloudiest and most heated in all of PHP. Here's > the factual history of our poor little short_open_tag directive: > > ------------------------------------------------ > php.ini values : short_open_tag > ------------------------------------------------ > > PHP 4, 5_0 > * Default behaviour : on > * php.ini-dist : on > * php.ini-recommended : on > > PHP 5_1, 5_2: > * Default behaviour : on > * php.ini-dist : on > * php.ini-recommended : off > > PHP 5_3: > * Default behaviour : on > * php.ini-development : off > * php.ini-production : off > > ------------------------------------------------ > php.ini descriptions : short_open_tag > ------------------------------------------------ > > In 5_2 our reason for discouraging it is: > > ; - short_open_tag = Off [Portability] > ; Using short tags is discouraged when developing code meant for > redistribution > ; since short tags may not be supported on the target server. > ; Allow the tags are recognized. > ; NOTE: Using short tags should be avoided when developing applications or > ; libraries that are meant for redistribution, or deployment on PHP > ; servers which are not under your control, because short tags may not > ; be supported on the target server. For portable, redistributable code, > ; be sure not to use short tags. > > In 5_3 it's: > > ; This directive determines whether or not PHP will recognize code between > ; tags as PHP source which should be processed as such. It's been > ; recommended for several years that you not use the short tag "short cut" > and > ; instead to use the full tag combination. With the wide > spread use > ; of XML and use of these tags by other languages, the server can become > easily > ; confused and end up parsing the wrong code in the wrong context. But > because > ; this short cut has been a feature for such a long time, it's currently > still > ; supported for backwards compatibility, but we recommend you don't use > them. > > ------------------------------------------------ > > This history strongly suggests PHP is hoping and subtly forcing the world > to stop using this directive, and although it's not deprecated the wording > and treatment makes it feel it could be any day now. This situation must be > clarified before 5_3 is released, and will likely require our BDFL to do it. > > In related news, what came of this RFC? It still says "Under Discussion": > > - http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortags > > Regards, > Philip --- ## #43689 — Stan Vassilev | FM — 2009-04-14T06:25:13+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43689 · In reply to: #43688 Hi, A vote in support of short tags, although last time I checked they were not removed in PHP6 (and I hate to see this brought up once more). On top of that, the supposed XML conflict argument is not fully thought through, since full PHP tags are not XML compliant either: "; ?> In the above example, XML parsers would do this: Processing directive: Text node: "; ? Parse error: > As you see, it's a much simpler world when we realize PHP was never supposed to be XML in the first place. However it was supposed to be a preprocessing templating engine, and so we need to keep it optimized for that. Regards, Stan Vassilev --- ## #43690 — Rasmus Lerdorf — 2009-04-14T07:54:53+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43690 · In reply to: #43689 Stan Vassilev | FM wrote: > Hi, > > A vote in support of short tags, although last time I checked they were > not removed in PHP6 (and I hate to see this brought up once more). > On top of that, the supposed XML conflict argument is not fully thought > through, since full PHP tags are not XML compliant either: > > "; ?> > > In the above example, XML parsers would do this: > > Processing directive: > Text node: "; ? > Parse error: > > > As you see, it's a much simpler world when we realize PHP was never > supposed to be XML in the first place. However it was supposed to be a > preprocessing templating engine, and so we need to keep it optimized for > that. Which is one of the reasons we decided not to remove them in PHP 6. -Rasmus --- ## #43692 — Glen — 2009-04-14T11:41:24+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43692 · In reply to: #43683 I'm not suggesting anyone be forced to do anything. But: ... <%= $this->that; %> Looks neater than: '; ?> ... that; ?> Hence my suggestion. Glen. Mike Panchenko wrote: > > > > > […] > > +1 > > One of the reason's for PHP's success IMO is the ease of creating templates > with it. Forcing everyone to write every time just just > so that you don't have to write off. My $.02. > > Mike. --- ## #43693 — Glen — 2009-04-14T11:47:22+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43693 · In reply to: #43685 Right, but at the moment something like: that;?> ... works. i.e. no whitespace after the opening tag. Changing this would most likely break a fair amount of code. Glen. Evert | Filemobile wrote: > > > > > […] > > I think the parser should look ahead and check for something like : > > / > (either > Evert --- ## #43694 — Jani Taskinen — 2009-04-14T11:56:48+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43694 · In reply to: #43693 PLEASE, let the dead horse be! --Jani Glen wrote: > Right, but at the moment something like: > > that;?> > > .. works. i.e. no whitespace after the opening tag. > > Changing this would most likely break a fair amount of code. > > Glen. > > Evert | Filemobile wrote: > > […] --- ## #43695 — Glen — 2009-04-14T12:05:06+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43695 · In reply to: #43687 Thanks for the information, Philip. I hereby summon the BDFL ... erm, no pressure. :-) I really think ASP/JSP tags could be the answer. Glen. Philip Olson wrote: > > Today this topic may be the cloudiest and most heated in all of PHP. > Here's the factual history of our poor little short_open_tag directive: > > ------------------------------------------------ > php.ini values : short_open_tag > ------------------------------------------------ > > PHP 4, 5_0 > * Default behaviour : on > * php.ini-dist : on > * php.ini-recommended : on > > PHP 5_1, 5_2: > * Default behaviour : on > * php.ini-dist : on > * php.ini-recommended : off > > PHP 5_3: > * Default behaviour : on > * php.ini-development : off > * php.ini-production : off > > ------------------------------------------------ > php.ini descriptions : short_open_tag > ------------------------------------------------ > > In 5_2 our reason for discouraging it is: > > ; - short_open_tag = Off [Portability] > ; Using short tags is discouraged when developing code meant for > redistribution > ; since short tags may not be supported on the target server. > ; Allow the tags are > recognized. > ; NOTE: Using short tags should be avoided when developing > applications or > ; libraries that are meant for redistribution, or deployment on PHP > ; servers which are not under your control, because short tags may not > ; be supported on the target server. For portable, redistributable code, > ; be sure not to use short tags. > > In 5_3 it's: > > ; This directive determines whether or not PHP will recognize code > between > ; tags as PHP source which should be processed as such. It's > been > ; recommended for several years that you not use the short tag "short > cut" and > ; instead to use the full tag combination. With the wide > spread use > ; of XML and use of these tags by other languages, the server can > become easily > ; confused and end up parsing the wrong code in the wrong context. But > because > ; this short cut has been a feature for such a long time, it's > currently still > ; supported for backwards compatibility, but we recommend you don't > use them. > > ------------------------------------------------ > > This history strongly suggests PHP is hoping and subtly forcing the > world to stop using this directive, and although it's not deprecated > the wording and treatment makes it feel it could be any day now. This > situation must be clarified before 5_3 is released, and will likely > require our BDFL to do it. > > In related news, what came of this RFC? It still says "Under Discussion": > > - http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortags > > Regards, > Philip --- ## #43696 — Glen — 2009-04-14T12:08:02+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43696 · In reply to: #43694 Which horse are you referring to exactly? Jani Taskinen wrote: > PLEASE, let the dead horse be! > > --Jani > > > Glen wrote: > > […] --- ## #43697 — Glen — 2009-04-14T12:17:38+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43697 · In reply to: #43688 Why such a complicated-looking thing (that breaks syntax-highlighting, at least in my IDE), when you can just use: '; ?> Or turn short_open_tag off (and asp_tags on), and use: ... <%= $this->that; %> Glen. Kenan Sulayman wrote: > Hey Guys, > > Whenever I start an XHTML document, I do escape it this way: > > <xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> > > Where the > equals equals > > So, please do not deprecate it - because it's important for me :$ > > Thanks, > (c) Kenan Sulayman > Freelance Designer and Programmer > > Life's Live Poetry > > > > 2009/4/14 Philip Olson > > > > […] --- ## #43698 — Glen — 2009-04-14T12:26:15+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43698 · In reply to: #43689 I didn't say PHP tags were valid XML. I said short_open_tag conflicts with Hi, > > A vote in support of short tags, although last time I checked they > were not removed in PHP6 (and I hate to see this brought up once more). > On top of that, the supposed XML conflict argument is not fully > thought through, since full PHP tags are not XML compliant either: > > "; ?> > > In the above example, XML parsers would do this: > > Processing directive: > Text node: "; ? > Parse error: > > > As you see, it's a much simpler world when we realize PHP was never > supposed to be XML in the first place. However it was supposed to be a > preprocessing templating engine, and so we need to keep it optimized > for that. > > Regards, > Stan Vassilev --- ## #43699 — Mikko Koppanen — 2009-04-14T12:34:08+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43699 · In reply to: #43698 > I didn't say PHP tags were valid XML. I said short_open_tag conflicts > with > <% is not valid XML either, but it doesn't conflict with processing > instructions. > > Glen. Hello Glen, posting to mailing-lists is not a speed race so think about your answer before sending it. There should be no need to send four emails in a row as you can easily answer multiple persons / arguments in a single post. This discussion belongs to internals list anymore, so please move it to php-general mailing list. CCing the correct list in this mail. -- Mikko Koppanen --- ## #43701 — Arvids Godjuks — 2009-04-14T15:11:10+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43701 · In reply to: #43695 Hello everyone. I've been writing for some time now at the last project and it really sucks. I understand reason on depricating short_open_tag and I agree. But I have a proposal witch can ease templating. Remove short open tag, but leave . Bacicaly PHP parser should look for PLEASE, let the dead horse be! - David > Hello everyone. > I've been writing for some time now at > the > last project and it really sucks. I understand reason on depricating > short_open_tag and I agree. But I have a proposal witch can ease > templating. > > Remove short open tag, but leave . Bacicaly PHP parser > should look for 1). short_open_tag is gone for good as an option in .ini. > 2). Making templates doesn't suck > 3). Backwards compability with old templates is preserved (old > templates > with 4). it with > > Everyone is happy, XML and others are safe. > > Yes, it's really irritating to write > Yes, it's really irritating to write > […] Apparently, this horse is not as dead as some would like it to be :) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com --- ## #43705 — Philip Olson — 2009-04-14T18:06:42+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/43676#43705 · In reply to: #43704 > > […] > > Apparently, this horse is not as dead as some would like it to be :) The horse is not dead or if so then no proper burial service was given. People are still waiting for the invitations and wanting to hear the eulogy. So, instead I'll make the following assumptions and engrave them into this topics tombstone: - short_open_tag is fully alive - short_open_tag is PHP_INI_SYSTEM|PHP_INI_PERDIR - all distributed php.ini files disable it (5.3+) - the default will be enabled, forever, unless #5 is used - --disable-short-tags will exist, forever - no new alternative syntax will be implemented, ever That's the situation people should understand and since this horse is considered dead I will: - update php.ini ini descriptions to reflect this - update documentation to reflect this - mark http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortags as declined - point to the declined rfc when people suggest these alternatives All discussion is over unless a human knows the above synopsis is false, because CVS has spoken. RIP. Regards, Philip --- Next page: https://externals.io/message/43676.md?page=2