Re: short_open_tag

Zeev Suraski wrote: > > At 20:10 12/12/2000, André Langhorst wrote: > >>I'm ok with this change, if Sascha sets up a script that would redirect > >>all letters that include "Why the hell did my scripts stop working with > >>PHP 4.0.?@#$?@#%^@!#^" lookalikes to Kristian and yourself, and you both > >>guarantee to answer all of these letters. > > > >providently adding a FAQ? > > Won't be enough. Most people don't read FAQs. > > > I can live without it, I know how to switch it on, but to be prepared > > for the near future XML, text editors etc. I would make sense, it is not > > about constant changes, it is about reasonable changes and reasonable is > > subjective to some extent :) > > PHP is prepared for XML. It has XML support. I don't know how many people > *generate* XML with PHP, though. Considering 4 years have passed since we > decided to support the <?php tag because XML taking over the world and > obsoleting HTML is just around the corner, I'm pretty skeptic about this > today... An increasing amount of people do. We use PHP for generating XML output from our hosted search engine backends, and more and more people are using it for WAP/WML. But I don't think it has been a great difficulty for these people to switch off short_open_tag. It's amazing how much bru-ha-ha that can arise from a simple thing like this. Jeez. - Stig