Re: <?= and <%= both work, why not <?php=
| From: | Stig S. Bakken | Date: | Sat, 27 Apr 2002 21:35:03 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: <?= and <%= both work, why not <?php= | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-dev+get-83434@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Don't worry, you're not. :-)
- Stig
On Sat, 2002-04-27 at 03:44, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Yes, but I thought it was SGML compliant (as in, some sort of a subset of
> SGML with lots of predefined rules, but still, falls into the SGML language
> category).
>
> But then, I could very well be wrong about this.
>
> Zeev
>
> At 05:37 27/04/2002, Andrew Lindeman wrote:
> >I'm pretty sure XML is a scaled down and easier to learn/work with version of
> >SGML.
> >
> >Correct me if I'm wrong
> >
> >--Andrew
> >
> >On Friday 26 April 2002 07:30 pm, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > > At 03:18 27/04/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > > >It looks like we can. I was assuming the SGML characteristics for XML and
> > > >it looks like I was wrong. A '>' is ok inside the <?php ?>
> > > >tags.
> > >
> > > Ok, so that's actually useful. But it sounds odd - XML is not SGML
> > > compliant?
> > >
> > > Zeev
> >
> >--
> >"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds."
> >(Linus Torvalds about the superiority of Linux on the Amterdam
> >Linux Symposium)
>
>
> --
> PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php