As others explained before the RFC was drafted, file extensions should not be directly respected by PHP because environments differ too much. Instead a convention, NOT enforced at the code level, would be published and encouraged: .phpc for files that start out in PHP mode, and .php for files that start out in HTML mode. PHP would NOT enforce this, it would just be an encouraged practice in the writing of autoloaders and so on. (Note that autoloaders are already concerned with file extensions. They have to be in order to transform a class name into a filename.)
The RFC does not call for putting an end to the traditional use of PHP for templates at all, that is still the default behavior when parsing PHP. There is an entirely separate RFC that calls for that, but that's another thread. On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Rick WIdmer <vch...@developersdesk.com> wrote: > 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 > -- Tom Boutell P'unk Avenue 215 755 1330 punkave.com window.punkave.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
