Re: PEAR Standards (was Re: equivalent of asp's <%= strTest %>)

> > > If the people defining the PEAR standards really were that interested in > > standards, why include alternate ways of doing something? <?=$blah;?> > > And if the 'short tag' method is useful enough for people, why > > 'exclude' > it > > from a standard? This notion of 'PEAR standards' does irk me some, > because > > it's been so long in coming, and people are deferring to it before it's a > reality. > > First of all, I think that the PEAR folk are on a different endeavor than > the PHP developers. The PEAR people seem to be trying to propose a good > standard for a language that needs some improvement. They're doing a decent > job, but I think PEAR should wait till PHP matures a bit. > > Second, there is one very good reason not to use short tags: XML. All the > same, I'd rather just enable ASP tags than do away with short tags, as short > tags are irreplacable in templates rich in content and sparse on code. > I'm not sure why XML is an issue. Does XML use the ? in it's syntax? XML tags are, to my knowledge, of the <blah><blah/> style. Am I missing something? I admit it's been a bit since I've gotten into dealing with XML at any real in-depth level, but the short tags in PHP don't seem like they'd be a problem. If they're a problem for PHP, I think a lot of ASP shops will be caught short when dealing with XML.