Of course it is meaningful for PHP as well.
On 12/1/05, Bart de Boer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But that whitespace is meaningfull at XML level and not at PHP level.
Processing Instruction: phpecho
Sean Coates wrote:
Sara Golemon wrote:
oh, that's easy to solve '?php' WS + '='
btw,
Of course it is meaningful for PHP as well.
We're talking about the PHP language. Not the PHP engine. You're right that
the PHP engine needs to be capable of finding its processing instructions.
So it's capable of doing a little XML. Thus it needs to understand the
meaning of whitespace in
Surely it ought to care iff trying to look like a processing
instruction. But we digress...
On 12/1/05, Bart de Boer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, that whitespace is meaningfull for XML. Not for PHP. PHP couldn't care
less how processing instructions are defined in XML.
--
PHP Internals - PHP
On 01/12/05, Michael Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely it ought to care iff trying to look like a processing
instruction. But we digress...
On 12/1/05, Bart de Boer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, that whitespace is meaningfull for XML. Not for PHP. PHP couldn't care
less how processing
Just FYI, the lack of ?php= is the only reason we don't disable short
tags on all development projects at my company.
Mike
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:29:42 +0100
Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Bastian,
id like to see '?php=' too.
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:56:56
Mike Hall wrote:
Just FYI, the lack of ?php= is the only reason we don't disable short
tags on all development projects at my company.
as far as i remember the only arguemnt against ?php= was
that '=' is not a valid character for a XML processing instruction
name?
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe,
Hello Mike,
Same at my company.
?php= would be very nice.
--
Best regards,
Jasonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wednesday, November 30, 2005, 4:31:58 AM, you wrote:
MH Just FYI, the lack of ?php= is the only reason we don't disable short
MH tags on all development
Same for our company. We still use ? because of ?=
Ron
Jason Garber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Mike,
Same at my company.
?php= would be very nice.
--
Best regards,
Jasonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wednesday, November
On 11/30/05, Ron Korving [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Same for our company. We still use ? because of ?=
same here :-)
Would really be great if we could turn short_open_tags off and still
use the compact print syntax.
--Sebastian
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
Hello Hartmut,
oh, that's easy to solve '?php' WS + '='
btw, th ejsp way is to have '?jsp' '.' action
best regards
marcus
Wednesday, November 30, 2005, 10:44:37 AM, you wrote:
Mike Hall wrote:
Just FYI, the lack of ?php= is the only reason we don't disable short
tags on all development
'?php=' isn't allowed by the current W3C standards so enabling this
would brake standards compliance for PHP scripts.
If you want to be able to use '?php=' you should go to W3C.org. There's
where the XHTML/XML specs are defined.
If people change their code from '?' to '?php' then, while
That would be a mandatory whitespace then. Which may be a bit confusing.
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Hartmut,
oh, that's easy to solve '?php' WS + '='
btw, th ejsp way is to have '?jsp' '.' action
best regards
marcus
Wednesday, November 30, 2005, 10:44:37 AM, you wrote:
Mike Hall
oh, that's easy to solve '?php' WS + '='
btw, th ejsp way is to have '?jsp' '.' action
Marcus-
You give me greif over ;; and ** as namespace separators then you suggest
meaningful whitespace? *tsk*tsk*tsk*
-Sara
:)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
Sara Golemon wrote:
oh, that's easy to solve '?php' WS + '='
btw, th ejsp way is to have '?jsp' '.' action
Marcus-
You give me greif over ;; and ** as namespace separators then you
suggest meaningful whitespace? *tsk*tsk*tsk*
-Sara
:)
Ah, but the whitespace is already meaningful
But that whitespace is meaningfull at XML level and not at PHP level.
Processing Instruction: phpecho
Sean Coates wrote:
Sara Golemon wrote:
oh, that's easy to solve '?php' WS + '='
btw, th ejsp way is to have '?jsp' '.' action
Marcus-
You give me greif over ;; and ** as namespace
What concerns me most is that ?php= does not work, regardless if short
tags will be disabled or not in php6. I currently use %= to counter
this, but I am most certainly *not* happy with it.
So a clean ?php= solution would be ideal, so I wouldn't have to care
about xml/xsl files parsed and
Hello Bastian,
id like to see '?php=' too.
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:56:56 AM, you wrote:
What concerns me most is that ?php= does not work, regardless if short
tags will be disabled or not in php6. I currently use %= to counter
this, but I am most certainly *not* happy with
me too, i've asked for this before but i remember it being laughed away...
ron
Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Bastian,
id like to see '?php=' too.
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:56:56 AM, you wrote:
What concerns me most is that
Hi Marcus:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:58:16AM +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
To second this, the xml standard allows any name after '?' as processing
instruction. Widely in use is for example '?jsp' and do you want to start
special treatment for java stuff in PHP? ;-)
First, PHP scripts are
Hi,
On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:20, Daniel Convissor wrote:
First, PHP scripts are not XML files, so why are we concerned with what
the XML standard says?
It isn't about the XML standard but about exceptions for the PHP parser and
why should ?xml be treated different from ?jsp or ?xsl or
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 22:32 +0100, Johannes Schlueter wrote:
It isn't about the XML standard but about exceptions for the PHP parser and
why should ?xml be treated different from ?jsp or ?xsl or ?foo or ...
which all are used (hm, not sure about ?foo) and sometimes even in
combination with
I recall this being discussed before, but not what came of it: is there
a problem with just ignoring ?foo where foo is anything other than php
or =? ?foo or ?bar or ?whatever is a parse error anyway so I very
much doubt there's any BC break. Unless someone's program relies on
parse errors.
The
22 matches
Mail list logo
