# RFC: Removing PHP tags

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/59281
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/59281
- Started by Moriyoshi Koizumi on 2012-04-01T01:59:48+00:00
- Messages: 12
- 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

---

## #59281 — Moriyoshi Koizumi — 2012-04-01T01:59:48+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/59281#59281

Hi,

I wrote a RFC that proposes removal of PHP tags.  There is actually
strong public demand for it, and I also think it is necessary to
leverage PHP to a genuine, modern scripting language.

http://wiki.php.net/rfc/nophptags

Regards,
Moriyoshi

---

## #59282 — Klaus Silveira — 2012-04-01T02:24:12+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/59281#59282 · In reply to: #59281

Removing PHP's native feature of being able to be easily embedded inside
HTML and other markup languages is absolutely retrograde. Of of the biggest
points in favor of PHP is that i'm able to easily do this:

<ul>
<?php foreach ($stuff as $item): ?>
<li><?php echo $item ?></li>
<?php endforeach; ?>
</ul>

Or this:

<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<store>
<?php foreach ($stuff as $item): ?>
<product><?php echo $item ?></product>
<?php endforeach; ?>
</store>

Without having to implement any slow-as-hell template language. It works
right out of the box. Using MVC as an argument for tag removal is a clear
disrespect to the language itself.

---

## #59283 — Rasmus Lerdorf — 2012-04-01T02:29:53+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/59281#59283 · In reply to: #59281

> Hi,
> 
> I wrote a RFC that proposes removal of PHP tags.  There is actually
> strong public demand for it, and I also think it is necessary to
> leverage PHP to a genuine, modern scripting language.
> 
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/nophptags

I really doubt this will find much support, and note that PHP came well before ASP so that part of the RFC is factually inaccurate.

-Rasmus

---

## #59284 — Klaus Silveira — 2012-04-01T02:31:20+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/59281#59284 · In reply to: #59282

What many people fail to see is that PHP is it's own templating language.
It might be ugly for people used to other template languages, but it works
perfectly and right out of the box.

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Klaus Silveira <klaussilveira@php.net>wrote:

> Removing PHP's native feature of being able to be easily embedded inside
> HTML and other markup languages is absolutely retrograde. Of of the biggest
> points in favor of PHP is that i'm able to easily do this:
>
> <ul>
> <?php foreach ($stuff as $item): ?>
> <li><?php echo $item ?></li>
> <?php endforeach; ?>
> </ul>
>
> Or this:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" ?>
> <store>
> <?php foreach ($stuff as $item): ?>
> <product><?php echo $item ?></product>
> <?php endforeach; ?>
> </store>
>
> Without having to implement any slow-as-hell template language. It works
> right out of the box. Using MVC as an argument for tag removal is a clear
> disrespect to the language itself.

---

## #59285 — Laruence — 2012-04-01T02:38:14+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/59281#59285 · In reply to: #59284

Hi:
   sorry for say that, but the only benifit I can see, is save 5+ characters...

thanks


> What many people fail to see is that PHP is it's own templating language.
> It might be ugly for people used to other template languages, but it works
> perfectly and right out of the box.
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Klaus Silveira <klaussilveira@php.net>wrote:
>
> > […]



-- 
Laruence  Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/

---

## #59286 — Moriyoshi Koizumi — 2012-04-01T02:45:09+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/59281#59286 · In reply to: #59283

Ok, I'll try to fix that part. Thanks for the correction.

Moriyoshi


> 
>
> > […]
>
> I really doubt this will find much support, and note that PHP came well before ASP so that part of the RFC is factually inaccurate.
>
> -Rasmus

---

## #59287 — Rasmus Lerdorf — 2012-04-01T03:02:52+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/59281#59287 · In reply to: #59286

> Ok, I'll try to fix that part. Thanks for the correction.
> > […]

No problem. Keeping the April 1st RFCs factually accurate is a top priority around here.

-Rasmus

---

## #59288 — Brian Moon — 2012-04-01T03:23:44+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/59281#59288 · In reply to: #59287

Well played Moriyoshi. Well played.

Brian.
http://brian.moonspot.net


> 
>
> > […]
>
> No problem. Keeping the April 1st RFCs factually accurate is a top priority around here.
>
> -Rasmus

---

## #59289 — Reindl Harald — 2012-04-01T03:27:09+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/59281#59289 · In reply to: #59281

Am 01.04.2012 03:59, schrieb Moriyoshi Koizumi:
> Hi,
> 
> I wrote a RFC that proposes removal of PHP tags.  There is actually
> strong public demand for it, and I also think it is necessary to
> leverage PHP to a genuine, modern scripting language.
> 
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/nophptags

nice 1st april joke........

---

## #59290 — Xinchen Hui — 2012-04-01T03:38:48+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/59281#59290 · In reply to: #59287

-_#.......
Nice play ,Moriyoshi sama!

Sent from my iPhone

在 2012-4-1，11:03，Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> 写道：

> 
>
> > […]
>
> No problem. Keeping the April 1st RFCs factually accurate is a top priority around here.
>
> -Rasmus

---

## #59291 — Kris Craig — 2012-04-01T04:27:56+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/59281#59291 · In reply to: #59290

> -_#.......
> Nice play ,Moriyoshi sama!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> 在 2012-4-1，11:03，Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> 写道：
>
> > […]
> priority around here.
> > […]
>
> --
> 
> 
>
>
Damnit!  I just got April Fools punked for the first time since I was a
kid!  Now how am I supposed to look down my nose at everyone else?!  Thanks
a lot, Moriyoshi.

Though does it count if it's still March 31st over here?  ;)

--Kris

---

## #59302 — Daniel Macedo — 2012-04-01T14:53:40+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/59281#59302 · In reply to: #59291

> Though does it count if it's still March 31st over here?  ;)
>
> --Kris

Nope, you've been caught! (=
