PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 2:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ?= and %= both work, why not ?php=
Perhaps if it were a computer making these assumptions, yes. But anyone
with half a brain can see that ?php echo 'Hello'; ? is much easer to
understand for someone
On Sat, 2002-04-27 at 03:30, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 03:18 27/04/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
It looks like we can. I was assuming the SGML characteristics for XML and
it looks like I was wrong. A '' is ok inside the ?php ? tags.
Ok, so that's actually useful. But it sounds odd - XML is
On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 20:07, Sterling Hughes wrote:
Ok. #1 is the first logical, technical reason I've seen against the
shorthand being fully implemented (though it begs the question why it was
partially implemented in the first place).
I'm not to knowledgeable about SGML specifics
At 18:44 27/04/2002, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
On Sat, 2002-04-27 at 03:30, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 03:18 27/04/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
It looks like we can. I was assuming the SGML characteristics for XML and
it looks like I was wrong. A '' is ok inside the ?php ? tags.
Ok, so that's
Don't worry, you're not. :-)
- Stig
On Sat, 2002-04-27 at 03:44, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Yes, but I thought it was SGML compliant (as in, some sort of a subset of
SGML with lots of predefined rules, but still, falls into the SGML language
category).
But then, I could very well be wrong
At 19:11 25/04/2002 -0400, Brinkman, Theodore wrote:
Well, having read that thread (thank you), I tallied up the votes (where I
could tell what the vote was) and it was 13 for, 3 against, 2
undecided/don't care. Of the unsure, one person voted against, then
undecided, then for, the other voted
because 'you'll survive writing
an extra 3 characters'?
- Theo
-Original Message-
From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 8:38 AM
To: Brinkman, Theodore; 'PHP Developers Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] ?= and %= both work, why not ?php=
At 19
-Original Message-
From: Brinkman, Theodore
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 26 April 2002 14:55
To: 'PHP Developers Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] ?= and %= both work, why not ?php=
Sure, and its only an extra 4 character, really. But that's
not the issue
at hand
] ?= and %= both work, why not ?php=
Sure, and its only an extra 4 character, really. But that's
not the issue
at hand. The issue at hand is that the inconsistency of
supporting ?= and
%= but not ?php= encourages quite a few people to use the
'optional' short
form tags, meaning
?'.
- Theo
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:42 AM
To: Sam Liddicott
Cc: Brinkman, Theodore; 'PHP Developers Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] ?= and %= both work, why not ?php=
Guys, this argument has been killed many
: [PHP-DEV] ?= and %= both work, why not ?php=
Ok. #1 is the first logical, technical reason I've seen against the
shorthand being fully implemented (though it begs the question why it
was
partially implemented in the first place).
I'm not to knowledgeable about SGML specifics (and I can't
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] ?= and %= both work, why not ?php=
If, as you imply, '?=' and '%=' are such a horrible disease that
their
very existance is proof that '?php=' would be a syntactic travesty.
Why
were
]
___
-Original Message-
From: Brinkman, Theodore
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 6:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] ?= and %= both work, why not ?php=
As I said. The assumption that '?php echo $var ?' is more readable
than
'?php= $var
PROTECTED]
___
-Original Message-
From: Brinkman, Theodore
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 6:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] ?= and %= both work, why not ?php=
As I said. The assumption that '?php echo $var ?' is more
Ok. #1 is the first logical, technical reason I've seen against the
shorthand being fully implemented (though it begs the question why it was
partially implemented in the first place).
I'm not to knowledgeable about SGML specifics (and I can't afford to spend
$200+ for a copy of the spec
Why are short tags (? ? and % %) such a bad thing?
Why does the PHP formatting (tags) matter in terms of SGML XML?
Not that it matters, but personally I prefer to use the short tags ?
and ? because it's less code for me to write, it fits nicely into my
HTML, and I find ?= much easier to
At 21:07 26/04/2002, Sterling Hughes wrote:
The whole point of the ?php tag is to allow people to embed commands in
XML documents. When short tags are disabled, commands such as % echo
'HELLO'; % don't work. If you allow ?php=? syntax, it is not valid
XML, which negates the point of having ?php
At 20:32 26/04/2002, Gabriel Ricard wrote:
Why are short tags (? ? and % %) such a bad thing?
% % are bad because they're not supported on most setups.
? ? are not good enough because they're not supported on all setups, even
though they're supported on most. As to why they're not supported on
Perhaps if it were a computer making these assumptions, yes. But anyone
with half a brain can see that ?php echo 'Hello'; ? is much easer to
understand for someone with no programming experience, than:
?php='Hello'?.
Agreed, Sterling. I can't understand why this is so difficult to realize.
?php if ($foo $bar)
...
?
Is this valid XML?
No, this is technically invalid XML. You would have to write it as:
?php if ($foo gt; $bar)
But sheez... That's just way too ugly, you can work around it and there
are other examples out there of people breaking this rule. Doing ?php= is
a
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Gabriel Ricard wrote:
Why are short tags (? ? and % %) such a bad thing?
They aren't really bad. It's just that they are optional and if you
distribute your code to run on someone else's PHP setup they may be turned
off. If you have full control over your PHP setup
I'm pretty sure it is. It parses fine according to Xerces, at any rate. At
first, I was thinking the greater than comparison would cause problems, as
xsl:if elements like seeing the test written as foo gt; bar, but when
you have the symbol inside of a processing instruction, it's fine.
J
I'm pretty sure it is. It parses fine according to Xerces, at any rate. At
first, I was thinking the greater than comparison would cause problems, as
xsl:if elements like seeing the test written as foo gt; bar, but when
you have the symbol inside of a processing instruction, it's fine.
Are
This might not matter too much now, but conforming to XML standards might
matter eventually.
Let's say in a year or two, somebody decides to write a PHP module for an
XML/XSL processor. (Something like XSP using Apache's Cocoon.) Basically,
these processors take in some XML, look for
Are you positive about that? I would have assumed so, too, but it passes
both the Sablotron and Xerces XML processors without so much as a warning.
J
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
?php if ($foo $bar)
...
?
Is this valid XML?
No, this is technically invalid XML. You would have to write it
I hear that. Not that reading specs and standards isn't fun...
J
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I'm pretty sure it is. It parses fine according to Xerces, at any rate.
At first, I was thinking the greater than comparison would cause
problems, as xsl:if elements like seeing the test written as foo
Ok, cool, so as long as we don't do something stupid like add ?php= then
we are XML-clean. Well, in the language anyway. People could still write
?php echo ?? I suppose.
-Rasmus
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-pi
[16] PI
Just read that myself at w3c.org. I hate the format of their
recommendations, god. It takes forever for me to find anything specific in
their specs.
J
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-pi
[16] PI ::='?' PITarget (S (Char* - (Char*
Hi,
From: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-pi
[16] PI ::='?' PITarget (S (Char* - (Char* '?' Char*)))? '?'
[17] PITarget ::=Name - (('X' | 'x') ('M' | 'm') ('L' | 'l'))
[3] S::=(#x20 | #x9 | #xD | #xA)+
[2] Char ::=#x9 | #xA | #xD |
At 20:52 26/04/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
?php if ($foo $bar)
...
?
Is this valid XML?
No, this is technically invalid XML. You would have to write it as:
?php if ($foo gt; $bar)
Erm, but that won't work :)
But sheez... That's just way too ugly, you can work around it and
?php if ($foo gt; $bar)
Erm, but that won't work :)
Obviously.
But sheez... That's just way too ugly, you can work around it and there
are other examples out there of people breaking this rule. Doing ?php= is
a much more flagrant violation in my opinion.
Look, I'm not trying to argue
At 03:18 27/04/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
It looks like we can. I was assuming the SGML characteristics for XML and
it looks like I was wrong. A '' is ok inside the ?php ? tags.
Ok, so that's actually useful. But it sounds odd - XML is not SGML compliant?
Zeev
--
PHP Development Mailing
I'm pretty sure that XML is a scaled down and easier to learn/work with
version of SGML
Correct me if I'm wrong
--Andrew
On Friday 26 April 2002 07:30 pm, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 03:18 27/04/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
It looks like we can. I was assuming the SGML characteristics for XML
Yes, but I thought it was SGML compliant (as in, some sort of a subset of
SGML with lots of predefined rules, but still, falls into the SGML language
category).
But then, I could very well be wrong about this.
Zeev
At 05:37 27/04/2002, Andrew Lindeman wrote:
I'm pretty sure XML is a scaled
On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 15:27, Brinkman, Theodore wrote:
Ok. I have the feeling that I'm going to be making myself a bit unpopular
here with my first post, but I mean no offense or disrespect. I'm just
trying to understand something.
PHP allows ?= if short tags are enabled, or %= if
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 6:40 PM
To: Brinkman, Theodore
Cc: 'PHP Developers Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ?= and %= both work, why not ?php=
On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 15:27, Brinkman, Theodore wrote:
Ok. I have the feeling that I'm going to be making myself a bit
Why wasnt' this change implemented? It's not a feature anyone would be
forced to use, it improves syntax consistency, and the feeling from that
discussion was overwhelmingly for the change.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell (1903-1950)
--
XML, ?php= is not a valid processing tag.
Derick
-Original Message-
From: Lars Torben Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 6:40 PM
To: Brinkman, Theodore
Cc: 'PHP Developers Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ?= and %= both work, why not ?php=
On Thu
38 matches
Mail list logo
