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 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 masses or mixing XML/XHTML without
>>trivially escaping it, I see absolutely no point in using <?php over <?.
>
>
> The web is a rapidly changing market and standards are being activley
> evolved. <?php is more compatable with standards on the web than <? ...
> and its not about XML document headers.
>
>
>>In reality, very few people intermix PHP and XML. It just doesn't make
>>a whole lot of sense to do so. People tend to keep the two separate and
>>parse the XML from PHP.
>
>
> I have written semi static XML document from php before (for speed reasons
> over using an output parser). EG:
>
> <?xml ... ?>
> <root>
> <data>
> <age><?php echo $age; ?></age>
> </data>
> </root>
>
>>In the XHTML case, a lot of people mistakenly believe that they must
>>start their documents with an <?xml encoding=...?> tag, which if you
>>read the XHTML spec, is actually not necessary. The only use for the XML
>>encoding tag is for XML parsers to get the right character encoding.
>>Browsers, which are typically the target of PHP generated pages, get
>>their character encoding from the Content-type header, or optionally
>>from a similar meta tag. But even if you choose to put in the XML
>>encoding tag, I find it a hell of a lot easier to just put <?echo '<?xml
>>encoding="foobar"?>'?> at the top instead of changing hundreds of <?
>>tags to <?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 switched
> on).
>
> The only way around that problem is:
> 1. to force short tags on everywhere
> 2. to force people to use a tagging which is available everywhere
>
>
>>PHP became popular because it eliminated most of the tediousness of
>>writing CGI scripts or low-level Apache modules. If we slowly but
>>surely eliminate all the convenience aspects of PHP we are going to turn
>>the experience back into one of tedium again.
>
>
> Then surely short tags should be forced on in all cases if its a core
> offering of the php scripting language?
>
>
>>PHP is not a pure language. It never will be. The problem it solves is
>>ugly. Ugly problems often require ugly solutions. Solving an ugly
>>problem in a pure manner is bloody hard. PHP's aim is to make solving
>>the web problem easy. Ergo, therefore, Q.E.D, removing all the "ugly"
>>features of PHP is going to make it harder and harder to use PHP to
>>solve the web problem.
>>
>>-Rasmus
>
>
>
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
