> The attached patch implements automatic decoding of chunked
> transfer-encoding.
>
> Any objections against committing the patch into PHP_5_3?
>
I didn't have objections when I offered this filter several years ago,
and I still don't. I do recall Andi (or perhaps it was someone else)
saying it w
Hi!
The attached patch implements automatic decoding of chunked
transfer-encoding.
From what I see in the patch, it requires chunked data prefix to be:
XXX\r\n
where XXX are from 1 to 3 hex digits. However RFC 2616 defines chunk
size as arbitrarily long sequence of HEX digits, and also allo
Hi!
I was looking at how to fix #47930 and unfortunately due to the fact
that ext/filter is called before it's initialized as an extension, the
only fix that I could think of requires change in the API. Please see
attached. Please tell me if anybody sees any problem with it.
--
Stanislav Mal
PLEASE, let the dead horse be!
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 ass
Hi!
PLEASE, let the dead horse be!
Apparently, this horse is not as dead as some would like it to be :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
s...@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: s...@zend.com
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 03:11:10PM GMT, Arvids Godjuks
[arvids.godj...@gmail.com] said the following:
>
> Yes, it's really irritating to write http://suso.org/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
As Jani put it:
PLEASE, let the dead horse be!
- David
On 14.04.2009, at 17:11, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
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
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
Hi,
The attached patch implements automatic decoding of chunked
transfer-encoding.
It fixes http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=47021 but also affects all php
stream functions (e.g. file_get_contents("http://...";);)
Some PHP applications which check for Transfer-Encoding HTTP header and
perfor
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Glen wrote:
> 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
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
> though
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 i
Which horse are you referring to exactly?
Jani Taskinen wrote:
> 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
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_t
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:
On 13-Apr-09, at 4:06 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
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:
>
> On 13-Apr-09, at 4:06 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>>> Thats because with short_op
I'm not suggesting anyone be forced to do anything.
But:
...
<%= $this->that; %>
Looks neater than:
'; ?>
...
that; ?>
Hence my suggestion.
Glen.
Mike Panchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
>
>> It's a pretty small use case (that's a problem only
Some tests leave this crap behind:
? array_count_file
? tests/output/ob_start_basic_unerasable_005.php
? tests/security/magic_quotes_gpc.php
Might be related to that all tests fail currently.. :)
--Jani
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.p
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 comp
19 matches
Mail list logo
