473,372 Members | 839 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,372 software developers and data experts.

Why does include file text need to be bracketed by <?php> ... <?>

Since the include function is called from within a PHP script, why
does the included file have to identify itself as a PHP again by
enclosing its code in <?php... <?>

One would assume that the PHP interpreter works like any other, that
is, it first expands all the include files, and then parses the
resulting text. Can anyone help with an explanation?

Thanks,
M. McDonnell

May 28 '07 #1
14 3106

"Michael" <Mi***************@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
Since the include function is called from within a PHP script, why
does the included file have to identify itself as a PHP again by
enclosing its code in <?php... <?>

One would assume that the PHP interpreter works like any other, that
is, it first expands all the include files, and then parses the
resulting text. Can anyone help with an explanation?
Because a php can contain other text such as html... the parser is only
signaled to work on the block that is inside a the php tag...

you ever wonder why <? php ?looks like an html tag? cause it is!
May 28 '07 #2
On May 28, 6:03 pm, Michael <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote:
Since the include function is called from within a PHP script, why
does the included file have to identify itself as a PHP again by
enclosing its code in <?php... <?>

One would assume that the PHP interpreter works like any other, that
is, it first expands all the include files, and then parses the
resulting text. Can anyone help with an explanation?

Thanks,
M. McDonnell
It's not supposed to be bracketed by <?phpand <?>, but by <?php and ?
>. That's not necessary, though. You have to put those symbols into
your require-d file if you want it to be understood like php code, but
if you don't, it will be understood as raw output. Just like any other
php file:
<?php
if ( $x ) {
?>
some output here
some output here
some output here
<?php
} else {
?>
some other output here
some other output here
some other output here
<?php

May 28 '07 #3
On May 28, 6:09 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.comwrote:
"Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote in message

news:11**********************@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
Since the include function is called from within a PHP script, why
does the included file have to identify itself as a PHP again by
enclosing its code in <?php... <?>
One would assume that the PHP interpreter works like any other, that
is, it first expands all the include files, and then parses the
resulting text. Can anyone help with an explanation?
It's not supposed to be bracketed by <?phpand <?>, but by <?php
and ?
>. That's not necessary, though. You have to put those symbols into
your require-d file if you want it to be understood like php code, but
if you don't, it will be understood as raw output. Just like any other
php file:
<?php
if ( $x ) {
?>
some output here
some output here
some output here
<?php
} else {
?>
some other output here
some other output here
some other output here
<?php
}
?>

As for the require-d file, the same counts - if you didn't put <?php
and ?surrounding the contents of the file, they would be understood
as ordinary output, not php code (which, of course, can be exactly
what we wanted).
>
Because a php can contain other text such as html... the parser is only
signaled to work on the block that is inside a the php tag...

you ever wonder why <? php ?looks like an html tag? cause it is!
I wouldn't go that far to say <?php and ?are html tags, although
they do resemble them having lt and gt chars. Actually, the <? and ?>
are part of xml processing instruction declaration syntax, so when we
say "<?php" we say "give the following contents to php", and when we
say "?>", we actually say "those contents end here". So, php code is
actually organized as xml document, and html out of <?php ?>
instructions perfectly fits in that concept, being itself a subset of
xml, although older than xml.

May 28 '07 #4
On May 28, 9:24 am, Darko <darko.maksimo...@gmail.comwrote:
On May 28, 6:09 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.comwrote:"Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
Since the include function is called from within a PHP script, why
does the included file have to identify itself as a PHP again by
enclosing its code in <?php... <?>
One would assume that the PHP interpreter works like any other, that
is, it first expands all the include files, and then parses the
resulting text. Can anyone help with an explanation?

It's not supposed to be bracketed by <?phpand <?>, but by <?php
and ?
. That's not necessary, though. You have to put those symbols into

your require-d file if you want it to be understood like php code, but
if you don't, it will be understood as raw output. Just like any other
php file:
<?php
if ( $x ) {
?>
some output here
some output here
some output here
<?php
} else {
?>
some other output here
some other output here
some other output here
<?php
}
?>

As for the require-d file, the same counts - if you didn't put <?php
and ?surrounding the contents of the file, they would be understood
as ordinary output, not php code (which, of course, can be exactly
what we wanted).
Because a php can contain other text such as html... the parser is only
signaled to work on the block that is inside a the php tag...
you ever wonder why <? php ?looks like an html tag? cause it is!

I wouldn't go that far to say <?php and ?are html tags, although
they do resemble them having lt and gt chars. Actually, the <? and ?>
are part of xml processing instruction declaration syntax, so when we
say "<?php" we say "give the following contents to php", and when we
say "?>", we actually say "those contents end here". So, php code is
actually organized as xml document, and html out of <?php ?>
instructions perfectly fits in that concept, being itself a subset of
xml, although older than xml.
=====================
I guess I'm still missing the point. Once the browser interpreter sees
the <?php, it assumes that all text to follow is php code until the
terminating token ?is seen. Now if the include function is called
within the <?php ... ?>, the interpreter still assumes that any text
it sees is PHP. So again, I don't understand why the include text
needs to bracket its code in <?php ...?>. What am I missing here?
Thanks, MDM.

May 28 '07 #5

"Michael" <Mi***************@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@x35g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
On May 28, 9:24 am, Darko <darko.maksimo...@gmail.comwrote:
>On May 28, 6:09 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.comwrote:>
"Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote in message
>news:11**********************@z28g2000prd.googleg roups.com...
Since the include function is called from within a PHP script, why
does the included file have to identify itself as a PHP again by
enclosing its code in <?php... <?>
One would assume that the PHP interpreter works like any other, that
is, it first expands all the include files, and then parses the
resulting text. Can anyone help with an explanation?

It's not supposed to be bracketed by <?phpand <?>, but by <?php
and ?
>. That's not necessary, though. You have to put those symbols into

your require-d file if you want it to be understood like php code, but
if you don't, it will be understood as raw output. Just like any other
php file:
<?php
if ( $x ) {
?>
some output here
some output here
some output here
<?php
} else {
?>
some other output here
some other output here
some other output here
<?php
}
?>

As for the require-d file, the same counts - if you didn't put <?php
and ?surrounding the contents of the file, they would be understood
as ordinary output, not php code (which, of course, can be exactly
what we wanted).
Because a php can contain other text such as html... the parser is only
signaled to work on the block that is inside a the php tag...
you ever wonder why <? php ?looks like an html tag? cause it is!

I wouldn't go that far to say <?php and ?are html tags, although
they do resemble them having lt and gt chars. Actually, the <? and ?>
are part of xml processing instruction declaration syntax, so when we
say "<?php" we say "give the following contents to php", and when we
say "?>", we actually say "those contents end here". So, php code is
actually organized as xml document, and html out of <?php ?>
instructions perfectly fits in that concept, being itself a subset of
xml, although older than xml.

=====================
I guess I'm still missing the point. Once the browser interpreter sees
the <?php, it assumes that all text to follow is php code until the
terminating token ?is seen. Now if the include function is called
within the <?php ... ?>, the interpreter still assumes that any text
it sees is PHP. So again, I don't understand why the include text
needs to bracket its code in <?php ...?>. What am I missing here?
Thanks, MDM.
Thats your problem... php has nothing to do with the browser. Its a server
side scripting language and independent of the client.
May 28 '07 #6
On May 28, 10:05 am, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote in message

news:11*********************@x35g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...


On May 28, 9:24 am, Darko <darko.maksimo...@gmail.comwrote:
On May 28, 6:09 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.comwrote:>
"Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
Since the include function is called from within a PHP script, why
does the included file have to identify itself as a PHP again by
enclosing its code in <?php... <?>
One would assume that the PHP interpreter works like any other, that
is, it first expands all the include files, and then parses the
resulting text. Can anyone help with an explanation?
It's not supposed to be bracketed by <?phpand <?>, but by <?php
and ?
. That's not necessary, though. You have to put those symbols into
your require-d file if you want it to be understood like php code, but
if you don't, it will be understood as raw output. Just like any other
php file:
<?php
if ( $x ) {
?>
some output here
some output here
some output here
<?php
} else {
?>
some other output here
some other output here
some other output here
<?php
}
?>
As for the require-d file, the same counts - if you didn't put <?php
and ?surrounding the contents of the file, they would be understood
as ordinary output, not php code (which, of course, can be exactly
what we wanted).
Because a php can contain other text such as html... the parser is only
signaled to work on the block that is inside a the php tag...
you ever wonder why <? php ?looks like an html tag? cause it is!
I wouldn't go that far to say <?php and ?are html tags, although
they do resemble them having lt and gt chars. Actually, the <? and ?>
are part of xml processing instruction declaration syntax, so when we
say "<?php" we say "give the following contents to php", and when we
say "?>", we actually say "those contents end here". So, php code is
actually organized as xml document, and html out of <?php ?>
instructions perfectly fits in that concept, being itself a subset of
xml, although older than xml.
=====================
I guess I'm still missing the point. Once the browser interpreter sees
the <?php, it assumes that all text to follow is php code until the
terminating token ?is seen. Now if the include function is called
within the <?php ... ?>, the interpreter still assumes that any text
it sees is PHP. So again, I don't understand why the include text
needs to bracket its code in <?php ...?>. What am I missing here?
Thanks, MDM.

Thats your problem... php has nothing to do with the browser. Its a server
side scripting language and independent of the client.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
=============================
Yes, the text "browser interpreter" should replaced by "interpreter".
In any case, it would seem that the question is still valid. Any
comments would be appreciated.
MDM

May 28 '07 #7
On May 28, 12:45 pm, Michael <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote:
=============================
Yes, the text "browser interpreter" should replaced by "interpreter".
In any case, it would seem that the question is still valid. Any
comments would be appreciated.
MDM
I think I see what you're getting at. If you include a file, you still
need parser instructions for the contents of the included file, since
the include file can have processor directives just the same as the
including script does. To wit:

<code file="index.php">
<?php
include 'html-header.inc.php';
include 'main.inc.php';
include 'html-footer.inc.php';
?>
</code>

<code file="html-header.inc.php">
<html>
<head><title><?php echo COMPANY_NAME; ?></title></head>
<body>
<?php include 'company-header.inc.php'; ?>
</code>

<code file="main.inc.php">
<?php
$inc = '/LIB/section-'.$_GET['section'].'inc.php';
include $inc;
?>
</code>

<code file="html-footer.inc.php">
<?php include 'company-footer.inc.php'; ?>
</body>
</html>
</code>

So as you see, you have to have <?php ?tags on included content, as
that included content may still contain a mix of processor directives
and hard-coded data (like html).

Incidentally, you really only need <?php if a page is all php; the
parser will close the file and auto-insert a ?to finish. However, I
generally this to be bad practice and always insert it anyways.

May 28 '07 #8
Michael wrote:
Since the include function is called from within a PHP script, why
does the included file have to identify itself as a PHP again by
enclosing its code in <?php... <?>

One would assume that the PHP interpreter works like any other, that
is, it first expands all the include files, and then parses the
resulting text. Can anyone help with an explanation?
Unlike, say, C preprocessor instructions or java's imports, php
include() is executed when your script runs, not when it compiles. When
interpreter encounters an "include", it reads the given file and
evaluates its context as php code. "include" is just a confusing name,
"included" files are actually not "embedded" in main file.
--
gosha bine

extended php parser ~ http://code.google.com/p/pihipi
blok ~ http://www.tagarga.com/blok
May 28 '07 #9
On May 28, 10:05 am, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote in message

news:11*********************@x35g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...


On May 28, 9:24 am, Darko <darko.maksimo...@gmail.comwrote:
On May 28, 6:09 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.comwrote:>
"Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
Since the include function is called from within a PHP script, why
does the included file have to identify itself as a PHP again by
enclosing its code in <?php... <?>
One would assume that the PHP interpreter works like any other, that
is, it first expands all the include files, and then parses the
resulting text. Can anyone help with an explanation?
It's not supposed to be bracketed by <?phpand <?>, but by <?php
and ?
. That's not necessary, though. You have to put those symbols into
your require-d file if you want it to be understood like php code, but
if you don't, it will be understood as raw output. Just like any other
php file:
<?php
if ( $x ) {
?>
some output here
some output here
some output here
<?php
} else {
?>
some other output here
some other output here
some other output here
<?php
}
?>
As for the require-d file, the same counts - if you didn't put <?php
and ?surrounding the contents of the file, they would be understood
as ordinary output, not php code (which, of course, can be exactly
what we wanted).
Because a php can contain other text such as html... the parser is only
signaled to work on the block that is inside a the php tag...
you ever wonder why <? php ?looks like an html tag? cause it is!
I wouldn't go that far to say <?php and ?are html tags, although
they do resemble them having lt and gt chars. Actually, the <? and ?>
are part of xml processing instruction declaration syntax, so when we
say "<?php" we say "give the following contents to php", and when we
say "?>", we actually say "those contents end here". So, php code is
actually organized as xml document, and html out of <?php ?>
instructions perfectly fits in that concept, being itself a subset of
xml, although older than xml.
=====================
I guess I'm still missing the point. Once the browser interpreter sees
the <?php, it assumes that all text to follow is php code until the
terminating token ?is seen. Now if the include function is called
within the <?php ... ?>, the interpreter still assumes that any text
it sees is PHP. So again, I don't understand why the include text
needs to bracket its code in <?php ...?>. What am I missing here?
Thanks, MDM.

Thats your problem... php has nothing to do with the browser. Its a server
side scripting language and independent of the client.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
=============================
Yes, the text "browser interpreter" should replaced by "interpreter".
In any case, it would seem that the question is still valid. Any
comments would be appreciated.
MDM

May 28 '07 #10
Michael wrote:
On May 28, 10:05 am, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote in message

news:11*********************@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...


>>On May 28, 9:24 am, Darko <darko.maksimo...@gmail.comwrote:
On May 28, 6:09 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.comwrote:>
"Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@z28g2000prd.goog legroups.com...
>Since the include function is called from within a PHP script, why
>does the included file have to identify itself as a PHP again by
>enclosing its code in <?php... <?>
>One would assume that the PHP interpreter works like any other, that
>is, it first expands all the include files, and then parses the
>resulting text. Can anyone help with an explanation?
It's not supposed to be bracketed by <?phpand <?>, but by <?php
and ?
. That's not necessary, though. You have to put those symbols into
your require-d file if you want it to be understood like php code, but
if you don't, it will be understood as raw output. Just like any other
php file:
<?php
if ( $x ) {
?>
some output here
some output here
some output here
<?php
} else {
?>
some other output here
some other output here
some other output here
<?php
}
?>
As for the require-d file, the same counts - if you didn't put <?php
and ?surrounding the contents of the file, they would be understood
as ordinary output, not php code (which, of course, can be exactly
what we wanted).
Because a php can contain other text such as html... the parser is only
signaled to work on the block that is inside a the php tag...
you ever wonder why <? php ?looks like an html tag? cause it is!
I wouldn't go that far to say <?php and ?are html tags, although
they do resemble them having lt and gt chars. Actually, the <? and ?>
are part of xml processing instruction declaration syntax, so when we
say "<?php" we say "give the following contents to php", and when we
say "?>", we actually say "those contents end here". So, php code is
actually organized as xml document, and html out of <?php ?>
instructions perfectly fits in that concept, being itself a subset of
xml, although older than xml.
=====================
I guess I'm still missing the point. Once the browser interpreter sees
the <?php, it assumes that all text to follow is php code until the
terminating token ?is seen. Now if the include function is called
within the <?php ... ?>, the interpreter still assumes that any text
it sees is PHP. So again, I don't understand why the include text
needs to bracket its code in <?php ...?>. What am I missing here?
Thanks, MDM.
Thats your problem... php has nothing to do with the browser. Its a server
side scripting language and independent of the client.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
=============================
Yes, the text "browser interpreter" should replaced by "interpreter".
In any case, it would seem that the question is still valid. Any
comments would be appreciated.
MDM
Michel,

Because the included file may not necessarily contain PHP code. It can
contain html, for instance, with php code intermixed - just like any php
file. Or it may contain no php code at all.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
May 28 '07 #11
On May 28, 11:46 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Michael wrote:
On May 28, 10:05 am, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote in message
>news:11*********************@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
>On May 28, 9:24 am, Darko <darko.maksimo...@gmail.comwrote:
On May 28, 6:09 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.comwrote:>
"Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@z28g2000prd.goog legroups.com...
Since the include function is called from within a PHP script, why
does the included file have to identify itself as a PHP again by
enclosing its code in <?php... <?>
One would assume that the PHP interpreter works like any other, that
is, it first expands all the include files, and then parses the
resulting text. Can anyone help with an explanation?
It's not supposed to be bracketed by <?phpand <?>, but by <?php
and ?
. That's not necessary, though. You have to put those symbols into
your require-d file if you want it to be understood like php code, but
if you don't, it will be understood as raw output. Just like any other
php file:
<?php
if ( $x ) {
?>
some output here
some output here
some output here
<?php
} else {
?>
some other output here
some other output here
some other output here
<?php
}
?>
As for the require-d file, the same counts - if you didn't put <?php
and ?surrounding the contents of the file, they would be understood
as ordinary output, not php code (which, of course, can be exactly
what we wanted).
Because a php can contain other text such as html... the parser is only
signaled to work on the block that is inside a the php tag...
you ever wonder why <? php ?looks like an html tag? cause it is!
I wouldn't go that far to say <?php and ?are html tags, although
they do resemble them having lt and gt chars. Actually, the <? and ?>
are part of xml processing instruction declaration syntax, so when we
say "<?php" we say "give the following contents to php", and when we
say "?>", we actually say "those contents end here". So, php code is
actually organized as xml document, and html out of <?php ?>
instructions perfectly fits in that concept, being itself a subset of
xml, although older than xml.
=====================
I guess I'm still missing the point. Once the browser interpreter sees
the <?php, it assumes that all text to follow is php code until the
terminating token ?is seen. Now if the include function is called
within the <?php ... ?>, the interpreter still assumes that any text
it sees is PHP. So again, I don't understand why the include text
needs to bracket its code in <?php ...?>. What am I missing here?
Thanks, MDM.
Thats your problem... php has nothing to do with the browser. Its a server
side scripting language and independent of the client.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
=============================
Yes, the text "browser interpreter" should replaced by "interpreter".
In any case, it would seem that the question is still valid. Any
comments would be appreciated.
MDM

Michel,

Because the included file may not necessarily contain PHP code. It can
contain html, for instance, with php code intermixed - just like any php
file. Or it may contain no php code at all.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@attglobal.net
==================- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
======================
Thank you all for your very helpful answers to my question.

May 28 '07 #12
Message-ID: <11*********************@x35g2000prf.googlegroups. comfrom
Michael contained the following:
>I guess I'm still missing the point. Once the browser interpreter sees
the <?php, it assumes that all text to follow is php code until the
terminating token ?is seen. Now if the include function is called
within the <?php ... ?>, the interpreter still assumes that any text
it sees is PHP. So again, I don't understand why the include text
needs to bracket its code in <?php ...?>. What am I missing here?
Ummm...reading the manual?

http://uk.php.net/include/

"When a file is included, parsing drops out of PHP mode and into HTML
mode at the beginning of the target file, and resumes again at the end.
For this reason, any code inside the target file which should be
executed as PHP code must be enclosed within valid PHP start and end
tags."

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
May 29 '07 #13
Ummm...reading the manual?
>
http://uk.php.net/include/

"When a file is included, parsing drops out of PHP mode and into HTML
mode at the beginning of the target file, and resumes again at the end.
For this reason, any code inside the target file which should be
executed as PHP code must be enclosed within valid PHP start and end
tags."
Interesting topic this has been, and at last there is the correct
answer. I can easily imagine a situation where and included file,
whether being html, plain text or php, would be sometimes run
separately, sometimes as included file. If including would require
the ?-tags or <?php -tags, the whole include -functionality would
become unusable. This kind of behavior could of course be done with a
parameter that would determine whether those tags would be needed or
not, but that's another story then.

On the other issue about <?php -tags. In no way <?php is an html -tag.
It is not one, period. <% is not html tag, <cfoutput is not an html -
tag, <?= is not an html tag. Neither is any other markup that is used
in some own server side software to identify interpreted parts of the
code. Html -tags are listed in: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html
..

--
Jussi T
http://view.fi
http://naamio.net
http://hoffburger.com

May 29 '07 #14
Message-ID: <11**********************@k79g2000hse.googlegroups .comfrom
ju*****@gmail.com contained the following:
>On the other issue about <?php -tags. In no way <?php is an html -tag.
It is not one, period.
Indeed. In normal circumstances the browser never sees it.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
May 29 '07 #15

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

1
by: Bil Click | last post by:
I am coding classic ASP pages in Visual Studio .Net 2003. I have a file called counties_option.asp that just has a list of options: <OPTION VALUE="030">ANSON</OPTION> <OPTION...
3
by: Adam | last post by:
Hi All, Is it possible to use includes dynamically in html. Hopefully the following example will give an idea what I am rying to do. Thanks in advance Adam <script language="javascript">
1
by: RWC | last post by:
Hey Folks! I'm having trouble with an asp page. First off, I'm new to the html / asp world, but not to software development. I'd like to minimize or "normalize" the site, so I'm trying to use...
0
by: sharpener | last post by:
I'm new to C# and to newsgroups, so please bear with a possibly foolish query. I'll try to be sensible. The results of /// <summary> ... </summary> etc. appear immediately in the Object...
2
by: Susan Baker | last post by:
Hi, I am (trying) to compile some code I downloaded from the internet. The sources contain references to header files - using the form : #include <pathname/file> If I change the form to...
2
by: Nicky | last post by:
hi, all I know we can do this by some jscript. But is there a way to do it in asp.net c# code? In our project, users could sumit a piece of html code and I need to remove all html tag out. What's...
4
by: SammyBar | last post by:
Hi all, I wonder is it possible to upload the content of an <imgfield to a server. The content of the <imgwas downloaded from a web site different from the one it should be uploaded. The image...
4
by: saneman | last post by:
I have a folder 'app' containing a file 'main.cpp' and a subfolder 'types' (containing various header files). In main.cpp some header files from the subdir 'types' are included like: 1)...
6
by: Bernd Gaertner | last post by:
Dear experts, according to the standard, manipulators like noskipws are declared in the header ios (). But when I look at code that is around, I usually see #include<iomanipbeing used. What is...
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
In our work, we often need to import Excel data into databases (such as MySQL, SQL Server, Oracle) for data analysis and processing. Usually, we use database tools like Navicat or the Excel import...
0
by: taylorcarr | last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
0
by: Charles Arthur | last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
0
by: aa123db | last post by:
Variable and constants Use var or let for variables and const fror constants. Var foo ='bar'; Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar'; Functions function $name$ ($parameters$) { } ...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
0
BarryA
by: BarryA | last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
1
by: Sonnysonu | last post by:
This is the data of csv file 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length. suppose the i have to...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.