php-general Digest 6 Jun 2011 00:41:46 -0000 Issue 7346
Topics (messages 313380 through 313404):
Re: phpsadness - P.C. shmee seee.
313380 by: Geoff Shang
313381 by: Richard Riley
313382 by: Geoff Shang
313383 by: Richard Riley
313386 by: Geoff Shang
313387 by: Tim Streater
313389 by: Richard Riley
313390 by: Ashley Sheridan
313391 by: Paul M Foster
313392 by: Robert Cummings
313393 by: Robert Cummings
313394 by: Robert Cummings
313395 by: Richard Riley
313396 by: Robert Cummings
313397 by: Geoff Shang
313399 by: Tim Streater
313401 by: tedd
313402 by: tedd
313403 by: Richard Quadling
313404 by: Robert Cummings
Help needed with php.ini
313384 by: Adam Tong
313385 by: Richard Quadling
313400 by: Camilo Sperberg
Re: Found this and I thought of you.
313388 by: Jonesy
313398 by: Ken Kixmoeller
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 Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Tim Streater wrote:
Anyone whose site says that sort of crap needs a good smack.
Don't get me started on Facebook. If they don't like your browser, they
redirect you to their"We don't support your browser page". They don't
even let you try with your unsupported browser, which might well work if
you're clicking on a link to a particular status update.
Geoff.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Geoff Shang <ge...@quitelikely.com> writes:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> Anyone whose site says that sort of crap needs a good smack.
>
> Don't get me started on Facebook. If they don't like your browser, they
> redirect you to their"We don't support your browser page". They don't even
> let
> you try with your unsupported browser, which might well work if you're
> clicking
> on a link to a particular status update.
>
> Geoff.
Why do you feel FB should support some antiquated browser that doesnt
support any of the newer technoogies which enable security and more
advanced client side rendering?
If people want to use Lynx or W3m then go ahead : just dont expect
everyone else to pander to your desire to stay old school.
Google are now refusing to support older browsers like ie7 too.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
Why do you feel FB should support some antiquated browser that doesnt
support any of the newer technoogies which enable security and more
advanced client side rendering?
I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they
don't support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can
still be read, which is all I'm wanting to do anyway.
I can use the mobile site fine, but if someone posts a link to a status
message or some other item on Facebook, it's to the main site and not the
mobile one. I don't even bother clicking because I know Facebook won't
even try to send me the page I want.
Geoff.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Geoff Shang <ge...@quitelikely.com> writes:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> Why do you feel FB should support some antiquated browser that doesnt
>> support any of the newer technoogies which enable security and more
>> advanced client side rendering?
>
> I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they
> don't
> support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still be
> read,
> which is all I'm wanting to do anyway.
They need to or there can be unintentional side affects that will
reflect badly on them and possibly you.
If you really want a half arsed user experience then set your browser
string ;) Would that not work for you?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they don't
support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still be read,
which is all I'm wanting to do anyway.
They need to or there can be unintentional side affects that will
reflect badly on them and possibly you.
Rubbish. All they need to do is what everyone else does and say "This
site may not work well on your browser, we recommend using Internet
Explorer or firefox" (or whatever they support). Then if I choose to use
it, it's on my own head, which is fine by me.
If you really want a half arsed user experience then set your browser
string ;) Would that not work for you?
It probably would. But this tangent began with the principle of "Use IE
or Firefox" and how we hated sites that said that. It's the principle of
the thing.
Geoff.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 05 Jun 2011 at 16:23, Geoff Shang <ge...@quitelikely.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>>> I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they
>>> don't
>>> support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still be
>>> read,
>>> which is all I'm wanting to do anyway.
>>
>> They need to or there can be unintentional side affects that will
>> reflect badly on them and possibly you.
>
> Rubbish. All they need to do is what everyone else does and say "This
> site may not work well on your browser, we recommend using Internet
> Explorer or firefox" (or whatever they support). Then if I choose to use
> it, it's on my own head, which is fine by me.
>
>> If you really want a half arsed user experience then set your browser
>> string ;) Would that not work for you?
>
> It probably would. But this tangent began with the principle of "Use IE
> or Firefox" and how we hated sites that said that. It's the principle of
> the thing.
Yes. You might (just) be able to justify something really old [1], but Safari
5.0.5? I find that to be a damn cheek. I expect sites to be standards-based.
[1] Don't ask me what that means. I've not kept up with what new stuff is
around now that wasn't, ten years ago.
--
Cheers -- Tim
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Geoff Shang <ge...@quitelikely.com> writes:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>>> I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they
>>> don't
>>> support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still be
>>> read,
>>> which is all I'm wanting to do anyway.
>>
>> They need to or there can be unintentional side affects that will
>> reflect badly on them and possibly you.
>
> Rubbish. All they need to do is what everyone else does and say "This site
> may
> not work well on your browser, we recommend using Internet Explorer or
> firefox"
> (or whatever they support). Then if I choose to use it, it's on my own head,
> which is fine by me.
Not rubbish at all. They owe you nothing.
Not everyone is you.
If they allowed incompatible browsers that caused havoc then before you
know it the great unwashed would be demanding more and better support or
complaining about lack of functionality. Doing what they do they make it
very clear from day one.
Dont like it? The APIs are open. Write your own interfaces to their
authentication and graph API and target the parts that wont result in
your accuont being banned for chucking access tokens around and breaking
their security model.
Simple solution : use an uptodate capable browser if you want to use
these technologies. I really dont see why people whine.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 19:23 +0200, Richard Riley wrote:
> Geoff Shang <ge...@quitelikely.com> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
> >
> >>> I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they
> >>> don't
> >>> support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still
> >>> be read,
> >>> which is all I'm wanting to do anyway.
> >>
> >> They need to or there can be unintentional side affects that will
> >> reflect badly on them and possibly you.
> >
> > Rubbish. All they need to do is what everyone else does and say "This site
> > may
> > not work well on your browser, we recommend using Internet Explorer or
> > firefox"
> > (or whatever they support). Then if I choose to use it, it's on my own
> > head,
> > which is fine by me.
>
> Not rubbish at all. They owe you nothing.
>
> Not everyone is you.
>
> If they allowed incompatible browsers that caused havoc then before you
> know it the great unwashed would be demanding more and better support or
> complaining about lack of functionality. Doing what they do they make it
> very clear from day one.
>
> Dont like it? The APIs are open. Write your own interfaces to their
> authentication and graph API and target the parts that wont result in
> your accuont being banned for chucking access tokens around and breaking
> their security model.
>
> Simple solution : use an uptodate capable browser if you want to use
> these technologies. I really dont see why people whine.
>
>
>
>
I think his point is that a lot of websites ignorantly stop browsers not
on their list of compatible ones, and end up blocking browsers that
would work perfectly well, just the original developer either wasn't
aware or didn't care. This used to be in the form of Javascript
detecting if a browser was IE, and if it wasn't, assuming blindly it was
Netscape Navigator. Now Fx seems to be in that position, and many sites
ignore perfectly good browsers like Chrome, Safari, Opera & Konqueror to
name a few. All of these are modern browsers, yet they will be blocked
by stupid code.
--
Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:52:15PM -0700, Daevid Vincent wrote:
> and I'm "balding" from Alopecia
Me too, but in my case, it's just 'cause I'm old. ;-}
Paul
--
Paul M. Foster
http://noferblatz.com
http://quillandmouse.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 11-06-05 09:33 AM, Richard Riley wrote:
Geoff Shang<ge...@quitelikely.com> writes:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Tim Streater wrote:
Anyone whose site says that sort of crap needs a good smack.
Don't get me started on Facebook. If they don't like your browser, they
redirect you to their"We don't support your browser page". They don't even let
you try with your unsupported browser, which might well work if you're clicking
on a link to a particular status update.
Geoff.
Why do you feel FB should support some antiquated browser that doesnt
support any of the newer technoogies which enable security and more
advanced client side rendering?
If people want to use Lynx or W3m then go ahead : just dont expect
everyone else to pander to your desire to stay old school.
Google are now refusing to support older browsers like ie7 too.
2 words... progressive enhancement. If your browser doesn't support a
feature then it should degrade gracefully. Accessible web philosophy
101. I hate going on to some website, especially government, and finding
that it sniffs my browser and then completely excludes me if it doesn't
like what it finds.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
E-Mail Disclaimer: Information contained in this message and any
attached documents is considered confidential and legally protected.
This message is intended solely for the addressee(s). Disclosure,
copying, and distribution are prohibited unless authorized.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 11-06-05 01:23 PM, Richard Riley wrote:
Geoff Shang<ge...@quitelikely.com> writes:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they don't
support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still be read,
which is all I'm wanting to do anyway.
They need to or there can be unintentional side affects that will
reflect badly on them and possibly you.
Rubbish. All they need to do is what everyone else does and say "This site may
not work well on your browser, we recommend using Internet Explorer or firefox"
(or whatever they support). Then if I choose to use it, it's on my own head,
which is fine by me.
Not rubbish at all. They owe you nothing.
Not everyone is you.
If they allowed incompatible browsers that caused havoc then before you
know it the great unwashed would be demanding more and better support or
complaining about lack of functionality. Doing what they do they make it
very clear from day one.
Dont like it? The APIs are open. Write your own interfaces to their
authentication and graph API and target the parts that wont result in
your accuont being banned for chucking access tokens around and breaking
their security model.
If it's that easy to break their security model then it's not secure!
Cheers,
Rob.
--
E-Mail Disclaimer: Information contained in this message and any
attached documents is considered confidential and legally protected.
This message is intended solely for the addressee(s). Disclosure,
copying, and distribution are prohibited unless authorized.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 11-06-05 01:40 PM, Paul M Foster wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:52:15PM -0700, Daevid Vincent wrote:
and I'm "balding" from Alopecia
Me too, but in my case, it's just 'cause I'm old. ;-}
My sympathies to you both... I'm baling because I produce a lot of
testosterone >:D
Although, everything I read about having children suggests my estrogen
is likely at an all time high!
Cheers,
Rob.
--
E-Mail Disclaimer: Information contained in this message and any
attached documents is considered confidential and legally protected.
This message is intended solely for the addressee(s). Disclosure,
copying, and distribution are prohibited unless authorized.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ashley Sheridan <a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk> writes:
> On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 19:23 +0200, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> Geoff Shang <ge...@quitelikely.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>> >
>> >>> I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because
>> >>> they don't
>> >>> support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still
>> >>> be read,
>> >>> which is all I'm wanting to do anyway.
>> >>
>> >> They need to or there can be unintentional side affects that will
>> >> reflect badly on them and possibly you.
>> >
>> > Rubbish. All they need to do is what everyone else does and say "This
>> > site may
>> > not work well on your browser, we recommend using Internet Explorer or
>> > firefox"
>> > (or whatever they support). Then if I choose to use it, it's on my own
>> > head,
>> > which is fine by me.
>>
>> Not rubbish at all. They owe you nothing.
>>
>> Not everyone is you.
>>
>> If they allowed incompatible browsers that caused havoc then before you
>> know it the great unwashed would be demanding more and better support or
>> complaining about lack of functionality. Doing what they do they make it
>> very clear from day one.
>>
>> Dont like it? The APIs are open. Write your own interfaces to their
>> authentication and graph API and target the parts that wont result in
>> your accuont being banned for chucking access tokens around and breaking
>> their security model.
>>
>> Simple solution : use an uptodate capable browser if you want to use
>> these technologies. I really dont see why people whine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I think his point is that a lot of websites ignorantly stop browsers not
> on their list of compatible ones, and end up blocking browsers that
> would work perfectly well, just the original developer either wasn't
> aware or didn't care. This used to be in the form of Javascript
> detecting if a browser was IE, and if it wasn't, assuming blindly it was
> Netscape Navigator. Now Fx seems to be in that position, and many sites
> ignore perfectly good browsers like Chrome, Safari, Opera & Konqueror to
> name a few. All of these are modern browsers, yet they will be blocked
> by stupid code.
Ignorant blocking is a different matter and I would agree.
Blocking because someone is using out of date or incapable browsers is
another issue.
It is the latter, and specifically something with a rich UI that
requires secure connections like FB that I am discussing.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 11-06-05 02:25 PM, Richard Riley wrote:
Ashley Sheridan<a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk> writes:
>
I think his point is that a lot of websites ignorantly stop browsers not
on their list of compatible ones, and end up blocking browsers that
would work perfectly well, just the original developer either wasn't
aware or didn't care. This used to be in the form of Javascript
detecting if a browser was IE, and if it wasn't, assuming blindly it was
Netscape Navigator. Now Fx seems to be in that position, and many sites
ignore perfectly good browsers like Chrome, Safari, Opera& Konqueror to
name a few. All of these are modern browsers, yet they will be blocked
by stupid code.
Ignorant blocking is a different matter and I would agree.
Blocking because someone is using out of date or incapable browsers is
another issue.
It is the latter, and specifically something with a rich UI that
requires secure connections like FB that I am discussing.
Secure connection and rich UI should not in any way tread on the other's
role and responsibility. Authentication and authorization control
security, not the UI. If the UI controls the level of security then the
solution is broken. A well designed website should be navigable with a
screen reader without any of the DHTML and Ajax bits. That some sites
aren't, is just pure laziness. Information is information, websites just
present the information and it can be presented in multiple ways.
Progressive enhancement should be able to take a plain vanilla webpage
and blingify it, while leaving a navigable website via traditional means.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
E-Mail Disclaimer: Information contained in this message and any
attached documents is considered confidential and legally protected.
This message is intended solely for the addressee(s). Disclosure,
copying, and distribution are prohibited unless authorized.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
If they allowed incompatible browsers that caused havoc then before you
know it the great unwashed would be demanding more and better support or
complaining about lack of functionality. Doing what they do they make it
very clear from day one.
This would be a fair enough attitude if they only applied it to their
member sections, but they don't. They set themselves up as publishers of
information, page hosts of sorts, then don't let anyone in who wants to
*read* them.
Dont like it? The APIs are open. Write your own interfaces to their
authentication and graph API and target the parts that wont result in
your accuont being banned for chucking access tokens around and breaking
their security model.
Totally not the point. Quite aside from the fact that Mobile Facebook
works extremely well with Lynx, and so did Facebook Lite until they sadly
took it away, it's not what I'm having trouble with.
An example of what I'm talking about is the following tweet:
ABCGrandStand: #nrl : NSW ORIGIN team game two.. Dugan, Hayne, Hopoate,
Gasnier, Uate, Soward, Pearce, Gallen, Ennis, Mannah,...
http://fb.me/uPHxKiFC
http://twitter.com/abcgrandstand/status/77271757383413760
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no need to log in or anything
remotely 21st-century required to read the rest of this post. All you
need to do is click the URL and the appropriate Facebook status will come
up, which you're free to read without any further clicking on your part.
But only if you're using a browser that's been blessed by the Facebook
gods. If you're not, you're sent to
http://www.facebook.com/common/browser.php with no other course of action.
I hope you can appreciate my point. The choice to use Facebook was a
decision made by the person sending the tweet, not me. It's not going to
kill them to either let me see the page with appropriate functionality
warnings, or to flick-pass me to the equivalent mobile Facebook page. I
can't view it on the mobile site myself without first resolving where the
shortened URL points to, changing the "www" to "m" and hoping it works, or
signing in and trying to find it myself.
Even Twitter, who don't let me login to the regular site without
javascript, are quite happy to let me view tweets unauthenticated on their
site with Lynx. If I want to login, I need to use their mobile site. Not
a problem - if I try to use their main site and it doesn't work, it
doesn't work. At least they let me try.
Geoff.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 05 Jun 2011 at 21:28, Geoff Shang <ge...@quitelikely.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> If they allowed incompatible browsers that caused havoc then before you
>> know it the great unwashed would be demanding more and better support or
>> complaining about lack of functionality. Doing what they do they make it
>> very clear from day one.
>
> This would be a fair enough attitude if they only applied it to their
> member sections, but they don't. They set themselves up as publishers of
> information, page hosts of sorts, then don't let anyone in who wants to
> *read* them.
This sums it up better than I could:
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
--
Cheers -- Tim
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 6:29 PM +0100 6/5/11, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
I think his point is that a lot of websites ignorantly stop browsers not
on their list of compatible ones, and end up blocking browsers that
would work perfectly well, just the original developer either wasn't
aware or didn't care. This used to be in the form of Javascript
detecting if a browser was IE, and if it wasn't, assuming blindly it was
Netscape Navigator. Now Fx seems to be in that position, and many sites
ignore perfectly good browsers like Chrome, Safari, Opera & Konqueror to
name a few. All of these are modern browsers, yet they will be blocked
by stupid code.
--
Thanks,
Ash
1+
Absolutely.
If you want to have a web site it figures that you want as many
visitors as possible. If you restrict visitors to specific browsers
then runs contrary to your interest-- and that is just plain ignorant.
For example, I just found a web site where I wanted to order a car
part. In their search form they asked for my auto's make and year.
After I provided that information, without providing me anything,
they asked me for the part number I was interested in purchasing.
What???? How do I know what their part number is for the auto-part I
want?
I'm going to use their web site as an example of how NOT to design a
form. While they may know the auto-parts biz, they are clueless about
how to provide their products to visitors via their web site.
I've had more than one client tell me "Just have the computer do it"
-- to which I reply "I tried, but the computer just sits there. How
do you do it?"
Ignorance in leaps and bounds everywhere.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 2:15 PM -0400 6/5/11, Robert Cummings wrote:
On 11-06-05 09:33 AM, Richard Riley wrote:
Geoff Shang<ge...@quitelikely.com> writes:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Tim Streater wrote:
Anyone whose site says that sort of crap needs a good smack.
Don't get me started on Facebook. If they don't like your browser, they
redirect you to their"We don't support your browser page". They
don't even let
you try with your unsupported browser, which might well work if
you're clicking
on a link to a particular status update.
Geoff.
Why do you feel FB should support some antiquated browser that doesnt
support any of the newer technoogies which enable security and more
advanced client side rendering?
If people want to use Lynx or W3m then go ahead : just dont expect
everyone else to pander to your desire to stay old school.
Google are now refusing to support older browsers like ie7 too.
2 words... progressive enhancement. If your browser doesn't support
a feature then it should degrade gracefully. Accessible web
philosophy 101. I hate going on to some website, especially
government, and finding that it sniffs my browser and then
completely excludes me if it doesn't like what it finds.
Cheers,
Rob.
Rob:
Yeah, I agree, but it is also *you* -- so exclusion is understandable. :-)
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 5 June 2011 19:15, Robert Cummings <rob...@interjinn.com> wrote:
> 2 words... progressive enhancement. If your browser doesn't support a
> feature then it should degrade gracefully. Accessible web philosophy 101. I
> hate going on to some website, especially government, and finding that it
> sniffs my browser and then completely excludes me if it doesn't like what it
> finds.
There is another approach. Regressive Enhancement.
Essentially, create your site with all the bells and whistles enabled.
Make full use of all / any standards compliant feature.
For browsers not capable of supporting that, use emulation techniques.
Sitepoint have a blog about this technique :
http://blogs.sitepoint.com/regressive-enhancement-with-modernizr-and-yepnope/
--
Richard Quadling
Twitter : EE : Zend : PHPDoc
@RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY : bit.ly/lFnVea
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 11-06-05 07:28 PM, tedd wrote:
At 2:15 PM -0400 6/5/11, Robert Cummings wrote:
2 words... progressive enhancement. If your browser doesn't support
a feature then it should degrade gracefully. Accessible web
philosophy 101. I hate going on to some website, especially
government, and finding that it sniffs my browser and then
completely excludes me if it doesn't like what it finds.
Cheers,
Rob.
Rob:
Yeah, I agree, but it is also *you* -- so exclusion is understandable. :-)
As my kids are all too fond of saying to me... *PTHTHTHTHTTHTH*!
:D
Cheers,
Rob.
--
E-Mail Disclaimer: Information contained in this message and any
attached documents is considered confidential and legally protected.
This message is intended solely for the addressee(s). Disclosure,
copying, and distribution are prohibited unless authorized.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
I can't set correctly the error display and reporting properties. I
don't know what i'm doing wrong.
Here is the section that i modified in php.ini:
-----
display_errors = On
; Default Value: On
; Development Value: On
; Production Value: Off
display_startup_errors = On
; Default Value: Off
; Development Value: On
; Production Value: Off
error_reporting = E_ALL | E_STRICT
; Default Value: E_ALL & ~E_NOTICE
; Development Value: E_ALL | E_STRICT
; Production Value: E_ALL & ~E_DEPRECATED
----
And here is the output of phpinfo():
-----
display_errors Off Off
display_startup_errors Off Off
doc_root no value no value
docref_ext no value no value
docref_root no value no value
enable_dl Off Off
error_append_string no value no value
error_log no value no value
error_prepend_string no value no value
error_reporting 22527 22527
-----
I'm using a default installation (using yum) of php on Fedora14. This
is my development environment, and want to see all the errors on
standard output.
Thank you
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> ----
>
> And here is the output of phpinfo():
> -----
In the same phpinfo() output, what is the path/location of the php.ini
file you are using?
Loaded Configuration File D:\PHP\INI\php-cgi-fcgi.ini
for example.
--
Richard Quadling
Twitter : EE : Zend : PHPDoc
@RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY : bit.ly/lFnVea
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 05-06-2011, at 10:31, Adam Tong <adam.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can't set correctly the error display and reporting properties. I
> don't know what i'm doing wrong.
>
> Here is the section that i modified in php.ini:
> -----
> display_errors = On
> ; Default Value: On
> ; Development Value: On
> ; Production Value: Off
>
> display_startup_errors = On
> ; Default Value: Off
> ; Development Value: On
> ; Production Value: Off
>
> error_reporting = E_ALL | E_STRICT
> ; Default Value: E_ALL & ~E_NOTICE
> ; Development Value: E_ALL | E_STRICT
> ; Production Value: E_ALL & ~E_DEPRECATED
> ----
>
> And here is the output of phpinfo():
> -----
> display_errors Off Off
> display_startup_errors Off Off
> doc_root no value no value
> docref_ext no value no value
> docref_root no value no value
> enable_dl Off Off
> error_append_string no value no value
> error_log no value no value
> error_prepend_string no value no value
> error_reporting 22527 22527
> -----
>
> I'm using a default installation (using yum) of php on Fedora14. This
> is my development environment, and want to see all the errors on
> standard output.
>
> Thank you
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
Have you modified the example values instead of the ones mid-way php.ini? If
so, scroll down to check. The latest settings should override the previous one.
Have you restarted apache with service httpd restart or /etc/init.d/httpd
restart? (or apachectl restart)
In your php script or htaccess file, do you override those values?
Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use only]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 00:34:30 +0100, Richard Quadling wrote:
> http://www.exxcire.com/login.php
>
> If nothing more than a good "bad example".
ROTFLMAO!!! "Where Experts Exchange"
Sweet Jeezuz!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Jonesy <gm...@jonz.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 00:34:30 +0100, Richard Quadling wrote:
>> http://www.exxcire.com/login.php
>>
>> If nothing more than a good "bad example".
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! "Where Experts Exchange"
> Sweet Jeezuz!
At least they have a cute 404 page. Gotta count for *something*! <g>
Ken
--- End Message ---
