PHP Output Help

[rik]

I was flicking through a PHP book (one of the teach in 24 hour ones)
and I came across something I had never seen before in PHP. It was a
method of printing out without using the print method, it was something
like :

<?= $myVar; ?>

Is this an out dated method? Is it compatible with all versions of PHP
(since implementation at least)?

Rick
www.e-connected.com

[Andy Hassall]

On 9 Aug 2005 07:40:53 -0700, "rik" <ri*******@e-connected.com> wrote:

I was flicking through a PHP book (one of the teach in 24 hour ones)
and I came across something I had never seen before in PHP. It was a
method of printing out without using the print method, it was something
like :

<?= $myVar; ?>

Is this an out dated method?
Well, it's deprecated, as it requires short_open_tags to be enabled.

You might have thought that <?php=$myVar?> would be the long tags equivalent,
but it doesn't work.
Is it compatible with all versions of PHP
(since implementation at least)?

As far as I know - certainly valid a long way back.

I believe it's partly there to make ASP programmers more comfortable when
migrating since ASP has <%=variable%>.

--
Andy Hassall / <an**@andyh.co.uk> / <http://www.andyh.co.uk>
<http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space> Space: disk usage analysis tool

[Will Woodhull]

It is the "shortcut syntax" for echo: see the manual at
http://us3.php.net/manual/en/function.echo.php
As others have noted, it's deprecated.

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

Andy Hassall wrote:

On 9 Aug 2005 07:40:53 -0700, "rik" <ri*******@e-connected.com> wrote:

I was flicking through a PHP book (one of the teach in 24 hour ones)
and I came across something I had never seen before in PHP. It was a
method of printing out without using the print method, it was something
like :

<?= $myVar; ?>

Is this an out dated method?

Well, it's deprecated, as it requires short_open_tags to be enabled.

I dont' think, it's deprecated.

--
<?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com

[Will Woodhull]

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

Andy Hassall wrote:

Well, it's deprecated, as it requires short_open_tags to be enabled.

I dont' think, it's deprecated.

Well you are right in that 'deprecated' is not used to describe short
tags in the documentation. They are instead described as something to
avoid since they will not validate in XHTML or XML and are no longer
supported in all PHP implementations. By inference, whatever value they
may have had back in the day is no longer sufficient to justify their
use in new code. This is the operative definition of 'to deprecate' (in
this context).

Since the shortcut form of "echo" requires short tags, it too is
something we should leave behind as PHP evolves.

[Chuck Anderson]

Will Woodhull wrote:

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

Andy Hassall wrote:

Well, it's deprecated, as it requires short_open_tags to be enabled.

I dont' think, it's deprecated.

Well you are right in that 'deprecated' is not used to describe short
tags in the documentation. They are instead described as something to
avoid since they will not validate in XHTML or XML and are no longer
supported in all PHP implementations. By inference, whatever value they
may have had back in the day is no longer sufficient to justify their
use in new code. This is the operative definition of 'to deprecate' (in
this context).

Since the shortcut form of "echo" requires short tags, it too is
something we should leave behind as PHP evolves.

Awwwww crap! I hate this deprecation merry-go-round.

I've got short tags all over my scripts, as I started doing so in the
beginning. It looks a lot nicer and uses a lot less characters (looks
less busy). It's embedded into my personal style now (<? ?> and <?= ?>).

I suppose a quick and easy search and replace could fix it all up if I
ever have the need.

XML? What's XML? ô¿Ô¬

I haven't even begun to explore xml. My sites are all Php, MySQL, HTML,
CSS and JavaScript (and DHTML). It looks like I'll have to delve into it
eventually.

--
*****************************
Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
http://www.CycleTourist.com
Integrity is obvious.
The lack of it is common.
*****************************

[Chung Leong]

Why on earth would you want to run a PHP script through a XML
validator? If you ask me, being compliant with some standard just
because the standard is there is stupid.

[Simon Stienen]

On 2005-08-09 19-34-48 Will Woodhull <wi**@thornhenge.org> wrote:

They are instead described as something to
avoid since they will not validate in XHTML or XML

tbh, I don't care whether my PHP files validate against XHTML or XML as
long as their output does.

Regards,
Simon
--
Simon Stienen <http://slashlife.org/>
"What you do in this world is a matter of no consequence,
The question is, what can you make people believe that you have done."
/Sherlock Holmes in A Study in Scarlet by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle/

[Alvaro G Vicario]

*** Will Woodhull wrote/escribió (9 Aug 2005 10:34:48 -0700):

Well you are right in that 'deprecated' is not used to describe short
tags in the documentation. They are instead described as something to
avoid since they will not validate in XHTML or XML

Which is obviously right: PHP is not XHTML or XML.

--
-- Álvaro G. Vicario - Burgos, Spain
-- http://bits.demogracia.com - Mi sitio sobre programación web
-- Don't e-mail me your questions, post them to the group
--

[rik]

I suppose the difference between ASP and PHP is that echo $var; is much
shorter than response.write var so there is less need to have a
shorthnd version of it.

Rick
www.e-connected.com

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

rik wrote:

I suppose the difference between ASP and PHP is that echo $var; is much
shorter than response.write var so there is less need to have a
shorthnd version of it.

ASP too has short hand version <%= foo %>

--
<?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

Chuck Anderson wrote:
<snip>

Awwwww crap! I hate this deprecation merry-go-round.

I've got short tags all over my scripts, as I started doing so in the
beginning. It looks a lot nicer and uses a lot less characters (looks
less busy). It's embedded into my personal style now (<? ?> and <?= ?>).

I suppose a quick and easy search and replace could fix it all up if I
ever have the need.

XML? What's XML? ô¿Ô¬

Probably this might help a bit
<news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googleg roups.com> (
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5600a4b7b4568a )

--
<?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com

[Andy Hassall]

On 9 Aug 2005 10:34:48 -0700, "Will Woodhull" <wi**@thornhenge.org> wrote:

They are instead described as something to
avoid since they will not validate in XHTML or XML

I don't see that as the reason. It's more because having a literal XML prolog
at the start of the file gets misinterpreted as PHP.

<?xml version="1.0" ...
^^
PHP sees this as start of PHP. So you have to faff around with:

<?php print "<?xml ..."

You wouldn't run PHP source through an XML validator in the first place.

--
Andy Hassall / <an**@andyh.co.uk> / <http://www.andyh.co.uk>
<http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space> Space: disk usage analysis tool

[Will Woodhull]

Andy Hassall wrote:

On 9 Aug 2005 10:34:48 -0700, "Will Woodhull" <wi**@thornhenge.org> wrote:

<?xml version="1.0" ...
^^
PHP sees this as start of PHP.

Good point.

You wouldn't run PHP source through an XML validator in the first place.

I haven't done anything with PHP and XML as yet.

It is easier to validate a complex XHTML template with embedded PHP as
a .html page-- so there are times when it makes sense to run PHP source
through a validator. I expect that when I start working with AJAX kinds
of things, passing PHP source through the XML validator will be pretty
common.

[Andy Hassall]

On 10 Aug 2005 15:04:38 -0700, "Will Woodhull" <wi**@thornhenge.org> wrote:

Andy Hassall wrote:

You wouldn't run PHP source through an XML validator in the first place.

I haven't done anything with PHP and XML as yet.

It is easier to validate a complex XHTML template with embedded PHP as
a .html page-- so there are times when it makes sense to run PHP source
through a validator. I expect that when I start working with AJAX kinds
of things, passing PHP source through the XML validator will be pretty
common.

Hm, I still don't see why you'd pass the SOURCE through an XML validator. You
pass the OUTPUT through a validator; sure.

Surely you're not going to get very far trying to write XML-validated PHP
source code; kinda rules out using "&&" ... unless you start jumping through
hoops with CDATA or something. Then again I don't know enough about how an XML
validator would react to the contents of a <?php ?> processing instruction.

--
Andy Hassall / <an**@andyh.co.uk> / <http://www.andyh.co.uk>
<http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space> Space: disk usage analysis tool

[Will Woodhull]

Andy Hassall wrote:

On 10 Aug 2005 15:04:38 -0700, Will Woodhull wrote:

Andy Hassall wrote:

You wouldn't run PHP source through an XML validator in the first
place.

It is easier to validate a complex XHTML template with embedded PHP as
a .html page-- so there are times when it makes sense to run PHP source
through a validator.

Hm, I still don't see why you'd pass the SOURCE through an XML validator.
You pass the OUTPUT through a validator; sure.

Surely you're not going to get very far trying to write XML-validated PHP
source code; kinda rules out using "&&" ... unless you start jumping through
hoops with CDATA or something. Then again I don't know enough about how an
XML validator would react to the contents of a <?php ?> processing
instruction.

As I said earlier, I don't know about XML validation-- I'll see about
that when I get there.

With XHTML, so far my experience has been that code within the <?php
.... ?> tag is ignored by the validators. Just to be clear, I'm talking
about validating stuff like

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en">
<head>
<title><?php echo $_SESSION[spreadsheet][title] ?></title>
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
<?php
echo <<<EOHere
// functions providing spreadsheet capabilities and
EOHere;
// load initial spreadsheet values
echo $_SESSION[spreadsheet][javascriptVariables];
?>
// -->
</script>
</head>
<body onload="LoadDataToSpreadsheet()">
<div id="spreadsheet">
<!-- a complicated spreadsheet-like structure
with lots of "cells" -->
</div>
<form>
<!-- front end providing spreadsheet interface -->
</form>
</body>
</html>

A template like this can be complex enough that it makes sense to
validate it independently of the stuff that the PHP script will add.

[John Dunlop]

Andy Hassall wrote:

Then again I don't know enough about how an XML validator would react
to the contents of a <?php ?> processing instruction.

It wouldn't react at all, because Processing Instructions are
opaque to XML - they're passed to the application as they are.
Anything goes, up till PIClose, '?>' ('>' in HTML), whether or
not PHP would interpret that PIC as a closing PHP tag.

--
Jock