On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Rick WIdmer <vch...@developersdesk.com>wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 2:41 PM, Kris Craig wrote: > >> >>> Honestly, I would suggest just getting rid of "Option 1" altogether. It >> would end up over-complicating this to such a degree that any usefulness >> it >> might serve would be considerably diminished. >> >> As for embedded HTML, if you allow the ?> tag in these .phpp files, then >> that pretty much negates the entire purpose of having them to begin with. >> Essentially, you'd just be changing it so that, instead of defaulting to >> "?>" when no tag is present, it defaults to"<?php". I just don't see any >> value in that as a developer. >> >> A developer should *not* be including in a .phpp file classes that contain >> >> HTML within the ?> tag, period. If they need to include something that >> has >> that, they should do it in a regular .php file. An "HTML-less" PHP file >> needs to be exactly that; no direct HTML allowed. Otherwise, the RFC is >> completely and utterly pointless IMHO. >> >> >> I think this would be awesome for PHP 6, but I'll have to vote against it >> if you settle on using "Option 1" and/or allow ?> content to be >> embedded/included in .phpp files. If we differentiate based solely on the >> file extension and keep ?> tags out of it, then I'll definitely support >> it! >> > > > > Please forget about file extensions. PHP should not consider file > extensions. The only reason .php files are executed by PHP is because the > web browser is configured to pass that extension to PHP rather than handle > it internally. > > > I sincerely hope that any suggestion to eliminate the ability to use PHP > as a template engine will be met with a veto by the core developers, or > maybe even another suggestion by the trademark owner of PHP that he will > not allow the PHP name to be used on such a language. That's a bit harsh, don't you think? I mean, it seems a little premature to be talking about bringing forth IP litigation to stop an RFC that's still being drafted. --Kris
