On 4/9/2012 2:41 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
Honestly, I would suggest just getting rid of "Option 1" altogether. It would end up over-complicating this to such a degree that any usefulness it might serve would be considerably diminished. As for embedded HTML, if you allow the ?> tag in these .phpp files, then that pretty much negates the entire purpose of having them to begin with. Essentially, you'd just be changing it so that, instead of defaulting to "?>" when no tag is present, it defaults to"<?php". I just don't see any value in that as a developer. A developer should *not* be including in a .phpp file classes that contain HTML within the ?> tag, period. If they need to include something that has that, they should do it in a regular .php file. An "HTML-less" PHP file needs to be exactly that; no direct HTML allowed. Otherwise, the RFC is completely and utterly pointless IMHO. I think this would be awesome for PHP 6, but I'll have to vote against it if you settle on using "Option 1" and/or allow ?> content to be embedded/included in .phpp files. If we differentiate based solely on the file extension and keep ?> tags out of it, then I'll definitely support it!
Please forget about file extensions. PHP should not consider file extensions. The only reason .php files are executed by PHP is because the web browser is configured to pass that extension to PHP rather than handle it internally.
I sincerely hope that any suggestion to eliminate the ability to use PHP as a template engine will be met with a veto by the core developers, or maybe even another suggestion by the trademark owner of PHP that he will not allow the PHP name to be used on such a language.
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
