Re: UPDATED RFC version 1.1: source files without opening <?php tag

Hello, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Chris Stockton > <chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com> wrote: >> I have read the RFC and I although from what I gather it seems that >> .phpp is a recommendation and not a requirement, but I want to make >> absolutely sure. > > > That is correct, it is not a requirement. However if you know of any > reason why .phpp would be a bad choice of file extension for PHP > source files without <?php and ?> in them, now would be a good time to > share that input. > Something about PHP advocating it makes me feel a little uneasy, I guess it can at least help frameworks have a unified standard for their auto loaders etc. My main concern is people expecting .phpp will "just work" when including via apache on shared hosting servers etc. End up with a file full of code, passwords, who knows what downloaded or displayed in a browser. The burden of responsibility here is not entirely clear for me, but I am just not sure I like proposing a separate PHP extension, just seems a little wrong. However from what I see no one else has said anything so perhaps I am wrong. I will say if I was developing a framework I might try to think of other alternatives for my auto loading / detecting of pure php files. I.E.a specific folder like "purephplib" a specific portion of the file name or something like "Class_Name_Pure" (like this much less then folders, but I think more then a file extension. Just my two cents. >> My only other issue is that we are not really following the guidelines >> for reserved constants, since "include" is not part of a "include" >> extension and a actual language construct it feels like it should live >> inside the reserved PHP_* constants. There may be projects that make >> use of "INCLUDE_ONCE" as a constant or maybe not, regardless I think >> it should follow the documented naming guidelines to be safe. > > I wasn't aware of those guidelines. This makes sense to me. > PHP_INCLUDE_ONCE, then? > I will let others comment here, was just my initial thoughts. -Chris