Re: short_open_tag

At 18:08 18-10-2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote: At 01:09 AM 10/18/2002 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:

At 18:49 17/10/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

<?xml ()?> has whitespace.

And I personally think it's a bit pushing it. How likely is it for someone to have a function called xml(), and then call it without a space from the <? tag, and then add a space before the parentheses? I think we can safely ignore that one...

I don't see why it's such a big deal for people who are creating xml to turn-off short tags? The big deal is not really XML.

Well - apart from this: /foo.xml: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><timestamp><?php echo $timestamp; ?></timestamp> bar.php: include('foo.xml'); This is a simple example, but results of transformations using the 'php PI' are not uncommon For instanse to solve problems, xslt's simplicity can't solve (variable scope's mostly) or process pre-processed documents to gain speed, but rely on the current request for some parts of the page (like profiling or simple stuff like banners). But really: should a novice be dealing with XML, when he/she cannot understand why short tags can be a problem and thus - is it wise to 'aid' novices by making it easier? Are they not helped more, when <?xml fails and short tags are on? I know that this will not apply to a hosting situation, but isn't that what the new ini file structure is for? So that hosting companies have the ability to set options on a per-user basis? And yes - this thread is way too long :) P.S. Andi/Zeev - please keep an 18 minute lag when you argue with eachother - it cannot be healthy to switch personalities more often than that -:) Met vriendelijke groeten / With kind regards, Webmaster IDG.nl Melvyn Sopacua