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 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 ignore that one... > > I don't see why it's such a big deal for people who are creating xml to > turn-off short tags? The big deal is not really XML.
Well - apart from this:
/foo.xml:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><timestamp><?php echo $timestamp; ?></timestamp>
bar.php:
include('foo.xml');
This is a simple example, but results of transformations using the 'php PI' are not uncommon
For instanse to solve problems, xslt's simplicity can't solve (variable scope's mostly) or process pre-processed documents to gain speed, but rely on the current request for some parts of the page (like profiling or simple stuff like banners).
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?
I know that this will not apply to a hosting situation, but isn't that what the new ini file structure is for? So that hosting companies have the ability to set options on a per-user basis?
And yes - this thread is way too long :)
P.S. Andi/Zeev - please keep an 18 minute lag when you argue with eachother - it cannot be healthy to switch personalities more often than that -:)
Met vriendelijke groeten / With kind regards,
Webmaster IDG.nl
Melvyn Sopacua
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
