.: B i g D o g :. wrote:
IMHO, i think that short tags should be taken out of php and just use
the ?php to start the parser.
if a patch is added then the parser just has more to look out for. What
is the XML standard changes to something else. We cannot see what is
coming next.
But if
Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
... in which case your php echo statement above won't parse properly. Since the definition of an XML PI block is effectively:
?tagname any text except the sequence ? ?
-- without any reference to the syntax of what's inside the block -- a true XML parser will think
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 01:09 AM 10/18/2002 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 18:49 17/10/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
?xml ()? has whitespace.
And I personally think it's a bit pushing it. How likely is it for
someone to have a function called xml(), and then call it without a
space from
On Tuesday 22 October 2002 08:13, Terence Kearns wrote:
I would hate to see PHP's simple but awsome application producing
capability essentially *crippled* (or at least stifled) when XML becomes
the norm because inter-application functionality (such as SOAP for only
*one* example) is essential
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
But really: should a novice be dealing with XML, when he/she cannot
understand why short tags can be a problem and thus - is it wise to
'aid' novices by making it easier? Are they not helped more, when
?xml fails and short tags are on?
Melven, I see what you're saying,
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
The big deal is not really XML. It is XHTML and authoring tools that try
to be too smart and stick an XML character encoding tag at the top of a
file automatically.
Sorry Rasmus, no disrespect dude, but I disagree. The issue *IS* XML and
since XHTML is an
Kristian Koehntopp wrote:
On Tuesday 22 October 2002 08:13, Terence Kearns wrote:
I would hate to see PHP's simple but awsome application producing
capability essentially *crippled* (or at least stifled) when XML becomes
the norm because inter-application functionality (such as SOAP for
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 03:33 PM 10/22/2002 +1000, Terence Kearns wrote:
Agreed.
If short tags were disabled in v5, then there would be no such need
for a hack like this.
They won't be disabled.
They won't be disabled.
They won't be disabled.
They won't be disabled.
They won't be
Shane Caraveo wrote:
Brad LaFountain wrote:
It would be very bad for php if short tags were disabled.
I 100% agree with andi. There are ways of dealing with xml and php
without pissing off the WHOLE php user world. I don't even use
long tags EVER, nor will I want to start.
- Brad
Damn, that
On Tuesday 22 October 2002 09:17, Terence Kearns wrote:
Ideally this is true, but as so many poeple have pointed out, not every
developer has access to the ini file on their ISPs server. Indeed,
maintaining a php.ini file is already a nightmare for ISP hosting to
unspecified groups PHP users.
Kristian Koehntopp wrote:
On Tuesday 22 October 2002 09:17, Terence Kearns wrote:
Ideally this is true, but as so many poeple have pointed out, not every
developer has access to the ini file on their ISPs server. Indeed,
maintaining a php.ini file is already a nightmare for ISP hosting to
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Terence Kearns wrote:
OK, after having read the threads, I know I'm gonna get blasted/flamed,
but I have to say this cos I've spent a lot of time trying to develop
elegent XML based solutions in PHP and this issue kills it for me
every time. So let me appologise in
Terence Kearns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... :
OK, after having read the threads, I know I'm gonna get blasted/flamed,
but I have to say this cos I've spent a lot of time trying to develop
elegent XML based solutions in PHP and this issue kills it for me
every time. So let me appologise in
Terence Kearns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... :
Removing support for the short tag all
tegether would be one major step in making the life of the sys-admin a
whole lot easier.
Isn't it just easier to disable short-tags within the .htaccess file if
that is really a paranoia of a programmer?
Terence Kearns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... :
I can see how short_open_tag enabled makes life harder than it should be
for the XML-using PHP-developer. I fail to see how this can happen in a
situation where this developer has no control over the appropriate php.ini
setting, though.
Terence Kearns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... :
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 03:33 PM 10/22/2002 +1000, Terence Kearns wrote:
Agreed.
If short tags were disabled in v5, then there would be no such need
for a hack like this.
They won't be disabled.
They won't be disabled.
At 07:33 22/10/2002, Terence Kearns wrote:
Agreed.
If short tags were disabled in v5, then there would be no such need for a
hack like this.
Right, we might as well switch to
?a_very_PHP_specific_tag_that_will_not_interfere_with_any_other_language
while we're at it, since nobody would use it
At 09:36 22/10/2002, Terence Kearns wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 03:33 PM 10/22/2002 +1000, Terence Kearns wrote:
Agreed.
If short tags were disabled in v5, then there would be no such need for
a hack like this.
They won't be disabled.
They won't be disabled.
They won't be disabled.
They
OK, after having read the threads, I know I'm gonna get blasted/flamed,
but I have to say this cos I've spent a lot of time trying to develop
elegent XML based solutions in PHP and this issue kills it for me
every time. So let me appologise in advance, BUT...
Speaking on v5, not only should
Zeev Suraski wrote:
No, we shouldn't have. It is not a deprecated feature or a
discouraged feature. If you use the *FAIRLY RARE* combination of
using PHP to generate XML, you'd have to configure your PHP. If
you're with the vast majority of the population and couldn't care less
about
Yes, but this doesn't solve the problem of whitespace before the
declaration.
the XML spec says that the declaration has to appear on the first line
with no whitespace before it.
developers will wonder why XML parsers don't accept their PHP script if
they accidently put whitespace before ?php
Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
I see side effect of ? tag as PHP start tag.
IMHO, language that supposed to process XML document
I think there is some sort of assumption by others that HTML is the only
thing we need to worry about. I suspect the importance of XML compliance
would be weighed up
I don't get this. Are people replying to you directly and you're cc'ing to
the list? Because I only see your answers and not their replies.
Andi
At 03:30 PM 10/22/2002 +1000, Terence Kearns wrote:
Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
I see side effect of ? tag as PHP start tag.
IMHO, language that supposed
Agreed.
If short tags were disabled in v5, then there would be no such need for
a hack like this.
Andi Gutmans wrote:
This is definitely one thing to think about. This is exactly the
reason why I was against in the beginning. I had a feeling such
ambiguities could arise.
Andi
At 09:43 AM
At 03:33 PM 10/22/2002 +1000, Terence Kearns wrote:
Agreed.
If short tags were disabled in v5, then there would be no such need for a
hack like this.
They won't be disabled.
They won't be disabled.
They won't be disabled.
They won't be disabled.
They won't be disabled.
They won't be disabled.
Dan Hardiker wrote:
Thousands of programmers use short tags in their scripts, but only
hundreds can't change this setting in php.ini manually.
M Wrong... Many webhosting companies won't allow customers to change
M php.ini, and my experiences with php_set_ini() aren't too good.
yep,
It would be very bad for php if short tags were disabled.
I 100% agree with andi. There are ways of dealing with xml and php
without pissing off the WHOLE php user world. I don't even use
long tags EVER, nor will I want to start.
- Brad
--- Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:33 PM
Brad LaFountain wrote:
It would be very bad for php if short tags were disabled.
I 100% agree with andi. There are ways of dealing with xml and php
without pissing off the WHOLE php user world. I don't even use
long tags EVER, nor will I want to start.
- Brad
Damn, that comes from a SOAP
Rick Widmer wrote:
I fail to see how using ?php is better coding practices. Unless you
plan on distributing your code to the masses or mixing XML/XHTML without
trivially escaping it, I see absolutely no point in using ?php over ?.
In reality, very few people intermix PHP and XML. It just
Antony Dovgal wrote:
Hello Dan,
DH Your missing the point of my suggestion. Im not suggesting we switch it
DH off by default, Im suggesting we *remove* the feature.
Very good.
Why not to change to script language=php.../script then?
Ah yes, this reminds me, that format will also break XML
Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 11:10 17/10/2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
No, we shouldn't have. It is not a deprecated feature or a
discouraged feature. If you use the *FAIRLY RARE* combination of
using PHP to generate XML, you'd have to configure your PHP. If
you're with the
I have to admit that after grep'ing a few hundred xml documents it does
seem to make some sense to support this.
It's ugly but it works. The only question is what will we think of this in
two years time? :)
By the way, I really think we should quit the ? removing thread. I think
it's quite
Hello All,
AG I don't see why it's such a big deal for people who are creating xml to
AG turn-off short tags?
YES!
This is the main question/answer of this thread!
So, please, people, calm down.
Zmievski has got the present for all of you...=))
Antony Dovgal aka tony2001
My main worry with such a hack would be breaking a script like this:
?php
function xml() {
echo Hello World;
}
?
...
?xml ()?
...
Now, people generally don't put spaces between the function name and the
(), but it is a BC concern since the above script works just fine
Since there are no drawbacks at all to the ?xml detection, and since it
does cover a great deal of the problem (taking into account the very
limited scope of the problem), I don't see a good reason not to add
it. Rasmus put it very well in one of his recent letters - PHP is not a
purists'
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't think we should add special hacks to the scanner. Soon we're
going to have a zillion hacks for other XML/SGML/foobar documents.
I agree.
We are better to leave it as documentation issue, IMO.
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
Andi
At 12:17 PM 10/16/2002 -0400, Ilia A. wrote:
At 07:40 18/10/2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 01:09 AM 10/18/2002 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 18:49 17/10/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
?xml ()? has whitespace.
And I personally think it's a bit pushing it. How likely is it for
someone to have a function called xml(), and then call it without
Unless they like arguing with themselvse in public heh
They are _not_ the same person!
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Well, I differ with you on that. I don't think there's anything in
the same class as ?xml.
At 18:08 17/10/2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't think we should add
just making it in numbers:
(users using short_tags) (users_using xml() function)
I suppose the first one wins. Now, wouldn't it be possible to find a
work around this issue? This should be a question, IMHO.
--
Maxim Maletsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:14:21 +0900 Yasuo Ohgaki
At 01:09 AM 10/18/2002 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 18:49 17/10/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
?xml ()? has whitespace.
And I personally think it's a bit pushing it. How likely is it for
someone to have a function called xml(), and then call it without a space
from the ? tag, and then add a
This is definitely one thing to think about. This is exactly the reason why
I was against in the beginning. I had a feeling such ambiguities could arise.
Andi
At 09:43 AM 10/17/2002 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
My main worry with such a hack would be breaking a script like this:
?php
At 18:49 17/10/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
?xml ()? has whitespace.
And I personally think it's a bit pushing it. How likely is it for someone
to have a function called xml(), and then call it without a space from the
? tag, and then add a space before the parentheses? I think we can safely
At 10:14 AM 10/18/2002 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 07:40 18/10/2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 01:09 AM 10/18/2002 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 18:49 17/10/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
?xml ()? has whitespace.
And I personally think it's a bit pushing it. How likely is it for
someone to
They are _not_ the same person!
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Well, I differ with you on that. I don't think there's anything in the
same class as ?xml.
Zeev
At 18:08 17/10/2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't think we should add special hacks to the scanner. Soon we're going
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 09:43:02AM -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
My main worry with such a hack would be breaking a script like this:
?php
function xml() {
echo Hello World;
}
?
...
?xml ()?
...
The hadler I suggest will no break any old code. Even
They are _not_ the same person!
I'm not convinced. Have you never seen Fight Club?
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Well, I differ with you on that. I don't think there's anything in
the
same class as ?xml.
Zeev
At 18:08 17/10/2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't think we
At 10:32 18/10/2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Why for a couple of years? Oh because we might end up finding out it
wasn't such a good idea after all? :)
No, because in a couple of years maybe ?xml will be yesterday's news, and
?fooml will be the New Thang :)
Well anyway, as far as I'm concerned,
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:50:12AM +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I can only argue with myself so much, eh? :)
yeah, just keep pretending dude... :)
Jan
--
Q: Thank Jan? A: http://geschenke.an.dasmoped.net/
Got an old and spare laptop? Please send me a mail.
Key7BCC EB86
I don't think we should add special hacks to the scanner. Soon we're going
to have a zillion hacks for other XML/SGML/foobar documents.
Andi
At 12:17 PM 10/16/2002 -0400, Ilia A. wrote:
Since the general consensus by the developers is not to remove the short_tags
or even disable them. Perhaps
Well, I differ with you on that. I don't think there's anything in the
same class as ?xml.
Zeev
At 18:08 17/10/2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't think we should add special hacks to the scanner. Soon we're going
to have a zillion hacks for other XML/SGML/foobar documents.
Andi
At 12:17 PM
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
I. Am. So. Tired. Of. Seeing. This. Come. Up. Over. And. Over. Again.
The next time someone mentions this on the list, I'm grabbing a LART[1] and
heading over to their house.
So we're not going to
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't see why it's such a big deal for people who are creating xml to
turn-off short tags?
Me neither, I use short tags all the time, but thats just me :)
--
* Tom Sommer
* http://www.tsn.dk | webmaster(a)tsn.dk
* Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 01:09 AM 10/18/2002 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 18:49 17/10/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
?xml ()? has whitespace.
And I personally think it's a bit pushing it. How likely is it for
someone to have a function called xml(), and then call it
At 18:08 18-10-2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 01:09 AM 10/18/2002 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 18:49 17/10/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
?xml ()? has whitespace.
And I personally think it's a bit pushing it. How likely is it for
someone to have a
I would have no problem - as a user - with the removal of short_tags IF
?php=$var? was allowed!! Because the ?= short cut is the only reason
I use ? at all!
Just to add fuel to the fire ;-)
Mike
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit:
At 04:29 17/10/2002, .: B i g D o g :. wrote:
IMHO, i think that short tags should be taken out of php and just use
the ?php to start the parser.
Not going to happen, please leave this issue alone.
Zeev
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit:
We should have warned people not to use short tags years ago.
We can try it from now. Until we get rid of short tag or
disable it by default, we suggest users to work around
problem.
I really think that whoever adds XML to their applications, will be
aware of the fact that short open tag
At 05:11 17/10/2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Ilia A. wrote:
Isn't BIG caution for short_open_tag=Off while having short_open_tag=On
enough for now? Something like;
Nope, please consider a hosting enviroment where an average user does not
even have access to the php.ini file. In fact, most ISP won't
Zeev Suraski wrote:
No, we shouldn't have. It is not a deprecated feature or a discouraged
feature. If you use the *FAIRLY RARE* combination of using PHP to
generate XML, you'd have to configure your PHP. If you're with the vast
majority of the population and couldn't care less about
At 11:10 17/10/2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
No, we shouldn't have. It is not a deprecated feature or a discouraged
feature. If you use the *FAIRLY RARE* combination of using PHP to
generate XML, you'd have to configure your PHP. If you're with the vast
majority of the
Mike Hall wrote:
I would have no problem - as a user - with the removal of short_tags IF
?php=$var? was allowed!! Because the ?= short cut is the only reason
I use ? at all!
Just to add fuel to the fire ;-)
I know that.
You know that
Most of know that it's just another fuel ;)
--
Yasuo
-Original Message-
From: Yasuo Ohgaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 17 October 2002 06:16
[snip]
Even if we never change the default,
?php echo ?xml ..?;? works always w/o patch.
[snip]
We may even have XML processor that processes PHP code in XML
documents in the
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
This is one of the reason why I think we should try to change
short_open_tag default. ? is reserved for XML PI (Processing
Instruction). There may be many (and/or custom) PI tags and it
may become more serious problem in the future.
We may even have
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
I. Am. So. Tired. Of. Seeing. This. Come. Up. Over. And. Over. Again.
The next time someone mentions this on the list, I'm grabbing a LART[1] and
heading over to their house.
So we're not going to turn it off by default?
Derick
--
Hello Dan,
Tuesday, October 15, 2002, 7:41:16 PM, you wrote:
DH The web is a rapidly changing market and standards are being activley
DH evolved. ?php is more compatable with standards on the web than ? ...
DH and its not about XML document headers.
Yes, the web is rapidly changing, but PHP
Since the general consensus by the developers is not to remove the short_tags
or even disable them. Perhaps we should consider alternate solutions to this
problem. Given the buzzword popularity of XML and its slowly growing
popularity among website designers (XHTML) this issue is likely to
Ilia A. wrote:
Since the general consensus by the developers is not to remove the short_tags
or even disable them. Perhaps we should consider alternate solutions to this
problem. Given the buzzword popularity of XML and its slowly growing
popularity among website designers (XHTML) this
IMHO, i think that short tags should be taken out of php and just use
the ?php to start the parser.
if a patch is added then the parser just has more to look out for. What
is the XML standard changes to something else. We cannot see what is
coming next.
But if short_open_tags is turned off by
On October 16, 2002 10:18 pm, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Ilia A. wrote:
Since the general consensus by the developers is not to remove the
short_tags or even disable them. Perhaps we should consider alternate
solutions to this problem. Given the buzzword popularity of XML and its
slowly growing
Ilia A. wrote:
Isn't BIG caution for short_open_tag=Off while having short_open_tag=On
enough for now? Something like;
Nope, please consider a hosting enviroment where an average user does not even
have access to the php.ini file. In fact, most ISP won't make user's life
difficult by
On October 16, 2002 11:11 pm, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Ilia A. wrote:
Isn't BIG caution for short_open_tag=Off while having short_open_tag=On
enough for now? Something like;
Nope, please consider a hosting enviroment where an average user does not
even have access to the php.ini file. In
We had the same discussion. I brought it up last time.
There were patch for ?xml just like yours.
The outcome was modified manual page that discourages
use of short tag for portable script.
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.basic-syntax.php
Current php.ini-dist has
==
; Allow the
On October 16, 2002 11:46 pm, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
We had the same discussion. I brought it up last time.
There were patch for ?xml just like yours.
The outcome was modified manual page that discourages
use of short tag for portable script.
Ilia A. wrote:
We should have warned people not to use short tags years ago.
What happened in the past is in the past, lets concentrate on the future.
Sure. We should.
The best way to go is discourage use of short tag
whenever possible, change default few years later, IMHO.
Even if we
Hello Dan and all.
DH Due to the frequency of this coming up on the list, would it be possible
DH to disable them as of PHP v5?
I suppose, it's not a kind of problem that should be solved in such way.
DH People will be expecting major changes come v5, and it might be the
DH easiest way to move
Thousands of programmers use short tags in their scripts, but only
hundreds can't change this setting in php.ini manually.
Wrong... Many webhosting companies won't allow customers to change php.ini,
and my experiences with php_set_ini() aren't too good.
Regards,
Manuzhai
--
PHP
Hello Manuzhai and others.
Tuesday, October 15, 2002, 10:27:33 AM, you wrote:
Thousands of programmers use short tags in their scripts, but only
hundreds can't change this setting in php.ini manually.
M Wrong... Many webhosting companies won't allow customers to change php.ini,
M and my
Thousands of programmers use short tags in their scripts, but only
hundreds can't change this setting in php.ini manually.
M Wrong... Many webhosting companies won't allow customers to change
M php.ini, and my experiences with php_set_ini() aren't too good.
yep, many of hostings don't
Hello Dan,
DH Your missing the point of my suggestion. Im not suggesting we switch it
DH off by default, Im suggesting we *remove* the feature.
Very good.
Why not to change to script language=php.../script then?
DH As the XML community expands and more and more scripting languages (server
DH
Strong opposition for changing this default from my end, if only for the
fact I'll be scared to show up in any PHP conference, fearing the wrath of
angered users.
Also see numerous past posts from me, Andi and others about why changing a
number in the version doesn't give us a carte blanche
Hello all.
ZS changing a number in the version doesn't give us a carte blanche to break
ZS compatibility. Compatibility breakage is cumulative - the more you break,
ZS the harder it is to adapt.
That's in fact what I'm talking about.
Antony Dovgal aka tony2001 mailto:[EMAIL
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Strong opposition for changing this default from my end, if only for the
fact I'll be scared to show up in any PHP conference, fearing the wrath of
angered users.
Also see numerous past posts from me, Andi and others about why changing a
number
At 12:17 10/15/2002 +0300, Antony Dovgal wrote:
Hello Dan,
DH Your missing the point of my suggestion. Im not suggesting we switch it
DH off by default, Im suggesting we *remove* the feature.
Very good.
Why not to change to script language=php.../script then?
As long as you're aiming for XHTML
For somebody who never uses/has used XML, it's incomprehensible, why
he/she has to type 3 extra chars every time.
Thats just bloody mindedness / lazyness ... or do we actively encourage
sloppy code?
IF (major if) anything, make a config-option --enable-xml-compliance
which checks/corrects a
At 17:52 15/10/2002, Dan Hardiker wrote:
I am still +1 on some how getting away from short_open_tag support, if
nothing else, to encourage better coding practices (just as we did with
turning register_globals off by default).
Except unless you mix PHP and XML, this change is meaningless, and it
At 18:01 15/10/2002 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I don't think you use reasonable logic in your analysis. For instance,
the fact that many servers have short_open_tag turned off and for them,
changing the default won't pose a security risk... So what? That's no
way to look at things, really.
I am still +1 on some how getting away from short_open_tag support, if
nothing else, to encourage better coding practices (just as we did with
turning register_globals off by default).
I fail to see how using ?php is better coding practices. Unless you
plan on distributing your code to the
I am still +1 on some how getting away from short_open_tag support, if
nothing else, to encourage better coding practices (just as we did
with turning register_globals off by default).
I fail to see how using ?php is better coding practices. Unless you
plan on distributing your code to the
Zeev Suraski wrote:
Except unless you mix PHP and XML
Someone who wants to mix PHP and XML should seriously take a look at
http://pear.php.net/package-info.php?pacid=37.
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/
Did I help you?
I'll keep my message short:
NO!
I think removing short tags from PHP and/or as INI default is horrible.
Andi
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
The other advantage is to force people one way or the other. In the case
of 50% of servers allowing short tags, and the other not... a script using
short tags will only work on 50% of PHP installations (just as a script
that relies on register_globals will only work on servers with it
Is it possible to have ?xml not be parsed by php?
I can't think of any situations in which ?xml? would be php, unless
you've define('xml'...). Even then it would most likely by ?=xml? or
?php xml ?
So it seems that ? and ?php are valid while ?xml(etc) is ignored.
-js
Dan Hardiker wrote:
I
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Dan Hardiker wrote:
I am still +1 on some how getting away from short_open_tag support, if
nothing else, to encourage better coding practices (just as we did
with turning register_globals off by default).
I fail to see how using ?php is better coding practices.
At 17:52 15-10-2002, Dan Hardiker wrote:
Another -1, because it's a security risk, as your (legacy) sources will
be sent to the client,
if you're not aware of this. This may expose passwords, internal
networks and what not.
The security risk there is the developer for having sensative
I fail to see how using ?php is better coding practices. Unless you
plan on distributing your code to the masses or mixing XML/XHTML without
trivially escaping it, I see absolutely no point in using ?php over ?.
In reality, very few people intermix PHP and XML. It just doesn't make a
whole
I'm -1 on removing short tags, whether now or for PHP5.
I use a Web host that allows short tags, and I can do this to add my XML
header to be XHTML compliant:
? echo ?xml version=\1.0\ encoding=\iso-8859-1\ ?\n; ?
Yes, perhaps it is slightly annoying to not just be able to write the
?xml ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just a thought, but I think short_open_tag should be Off by default in
php.ini-dist, to prevent PHP from being confused with XML declarations. I
know XML declarations aren't required (yet) by w3c, but XHTML document
authors are strongly encouraged
Due to the frequency of this coming up on the list, would it be possible
to disable them as of PHP v5?
People will be expecting major changes come v5, and it might be the
easiest way to move over (if thats what the developers conclude).
Im -1 on changing the default before v5 but +1 on it being
Dan Hardiker writes
Im -1 on changing the default before v5 but +1 on it being
done in the long run.
This sounds like the best approach.
Regards
Mike Robinson
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
99 matches
Mail list logo
