php-general Digest 26 Mar 2011 10:20:27 -0000 Issue 7244
Topics (messages 312063 through 312068):
Re: [PHP-WIN] Re: [PHP] Which versions of Apache will PHP 5.3.6 work with??
312063 by: Tommy Pham
312066 by: Sharl.Jimh.Tsin
312068 by: Pierre Joye
Re: opening a new window from php script
312064 by: Tommy Pham
312067 by: Geoff Lane
Re: putting variables in a variable
312065 by: David Robley
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-subscr...@lists.php.net
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-unsubscr...@lists.php.net
To post to the list, e-mail:
php-gene...@lists.php.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There used to be a VC6 binary release for PHP v5.3.3 at
>> windows.php.net but I don't see a VC6 build for v5.3 now. Any way,
>> since you're using using Windows, why not just run it as FastCGI? It
>> runs fine on Win2003 (x86), Win7 x64, Win08 (x86 & x64), and Win08r2.
>
> Apache module works just fine and is in many situations much faster than fcgi.
I've never tested the difference for performance. If that's the case,
any particular reason to stop support ISAPI for IIS then? or is
FastCGI faster than ISAPI for IIS? Prior to upgrading to PHP v5.3 and
Windows 64bit, I had faster initial response time from ISAPI. Now
with FastCGI, the initial response takes longer. As for performance
difference through repeated requests, I don't notice the difference
between ISAPI v5.2 and FastCGI v5.3.
>
>> Are using a specific Apache module that's why you need to use httpd?
>> If so, you could use the (non official) Apache Lounge's binary.
>
> There are no official builds of Apache, but convenience builds.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
>
I've meant official in the sense that one could download from the
official/mirror site. Thus it's more trust worthy, in terms of non
malicious code.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Try third binary instead of official one.
Best regards,
Sharl.Jimh.Tsin (From China **Obviously Taiwan INCLUDED**)
2011/3/26 Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There used to be a VC6 binary release for PHP v5.3.3 at
>>> windows.php.net but I don't see a VC6 build for v5.3 now. Any way,
>>> since you're using using Windows, why not just run it as FastCGI? It
>>> runs fine on Win2003 (x86), Win7 x64, Win08 (x86 & x64), and Win08r2.
>>
>> Apache module works just fine and is in many situations much faster than
>> fcgi.
>
> I've never tested the difference for performance. If that's the case,
> any particular reason to stop support ISAPI for IIS then? or is
> FastCGI faster than ISAPI for IIS? Prior to upgrading to PHP v5.3 and
> Windows 64bit, I had faster initial response time from ISAPI. Now
> with FastCGI, the initial response takes longer. As for performance
> difference through repeated requests, I don't notice the difference
> between ISAPI v5.2 and FastCGI v5.3.
>
>>
>>> Are using a specific Apache module that's why you need to use httpd?
>>> If so, you could use the (non official) Apache Lounge's binary.
>>
>> There are no official builds of Apache, but convenience builds.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Pierre
>>
>> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
>>
>
> I've meant official in the sense that one could download from the
> official/mirror site. Thus it's more trust worthy, in terms of non
> malicious code.
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've never tested the difference for performance. If that's the case,
> any particular reason to stop support ISAPI for IIS then? or is
> FastCGI faster than ISAPI for IIS?
It is faster, however the ISAPI was not maintained and has issues. But
what is the relation with Apache?
> I've meant official in the sense that one could download from the
> official/mirror site. Thus it's more trust worthy, in terms of non
> malicious code.
The developers at apachelounge.com work with th Apache project. We
would not recommend to use it if we do not trust this project.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Grega Leskovšek <legr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am working on CMS designed to those who are unfamiliar with a
> computer world and I want to offer a task where on a push of a button
> it will save current working page in textarea/s and open this page in
> a new tab or in a new window.
PHP is server side. "push of a button" is client side. Google
javascript+onClick.
> I googled some, but am still not sure how can I do it.
>
> Do I have to use target="_new" - I can not do this - I am working this
> for my University seminar and it has to be valid HTML5.
>
> Please help me improve my plan
> 1. I check wheter the user is using windows, linux, mac and then show
> appropriate possibility of all browsers for the targeted platform
> (WIN:IE,SA,FF,CH,OP, LINUX:FF.CHROMIUM and I need help for the mac
> also besides SA and FF what does it have among browsers?)
Have you tried to google for browser versions and platform? While
searching for the same thing long time ago, I found a site that lists
them. Also, note that since you'll be using onClick for "push of a
button", beware of Javascript version difference among the browsers.
IIRC, IE is supports 1.3 and FF supports 1.9. Haven't tested the
others so couldn't tell you.
> 2. When the browser clicks button with the image of browsers inside
> anchor I target _new and location of the current file
>
> ?1 How can I offer option to open a new window not a new tab?
> ?2 How can I avoid the target attribute?
> ?3 How can I make a click on an image to produce action - or what do
> You suggest me to use - I would prefer img element not button with an
> image - how can I do this?
>
> Once I will finish it I will offer here software to everybody so I
> will be able to get some response and improve it and this is one of
> the major problems otherwise it is already functional.
>
> Please help me, thanks in advance - or ? You think I could do this better in
> JS?
> -- When the sun rises I receive and when it sets I forgive ->
> http://moj.skavt.net/gleskovs/
> Always in Heart, Grega Leskovšek
>
I don't know if you have Flash in your tool belt but have you
considering using it? It may simply your life with various browsers
and their versions across different platforms. Note: Flash does tend
to be sluggish in terms of loading time and how much of what you need
the Flash to do.
Regards,
Tommy
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Friday, March 25, 2011, Grega Leskovek wrote:
> Do I have to use target="_new" - I can not do this - I am working
> this for my University seminar and it has to be valid HTML5.
I guess that this is an HTML issue rather than PHP. However:
Despite what the W3C validator might claim, I understand that the
target attribute of the anchor tag is still valid in HTML5. In any
case, HTML5 is a draft standard AFAICT, and so I have to question a
university's insistence on adhering to a 'moving target'.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110113/links.html#attr-hyperlink-target
should give you some ammunition to demonstrate to your tutor that
<a href="somewhere.html" target="_blank"> is valid. Quoting from
that W3C document:
The target attribute, if present, must be a valid browsing context
name or keyword. It gives the name of the browsing context that will
be used. User agents use this name when following hyperlinks.
They also say:
A valid browsing context name or keyword is any string that is
either a valid browsing context name or that is an ASCII
case-insensitive match for one of: _blank, _self, _parent, or _top.
FWIW, the 'target' attribute has been removed from 'link' elements,
which many have apparently wrongly taken to mean it's been removed
from hyperlinks (i.e. anchor tags). However, <link> and <a> are not
the same thing! An example of each:
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="styles.css" />
<a href="someplace.html" target="_blank">click here</a>
HTH,
--
Geoff
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hulf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am making and HTML email. I have 3 images to put in. Currently I have
>
> $body .="
> <table>
> <tr>
> <td><img src=\"image1.jpg\"></td>
> </tr>
>
> <tr>
> <td></td>
> </tr>
> </table>
> ";
>
>
> ideally I would like to have
>
> $myimage1 = "image1.jpg";
> $myimage2 = "image2.jpg";
> $myimage3 = "image3.jpg";
>
>
> and put them into the HTML body variable. I have tried escaping them in
> every way i can think of, dots and slashes and the rest. Any ideas?
>
>
> Ross
Did you try
$body .="
<table>
<tr>
<td><img src=\"$myimage1\"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>
";
It helps us help you if you can give examples of what you have tried and how
it didn't work as you expected.
Cheers
--
David Robley
Terminal glare: A look that kills...
Today is Setting Orange, the 12nd day of Discord in the YOLD 3177.
--- End Message ---
