On Saturday 28 October 2006 18:15, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >As far as I can tell, single and double quotes
> > are interchangeable (but unmixable) in both HTML
> > and XHTML. When did single quotes go bad?
>
> Hmmm, I've been under the impression for quite some time that single
> quotes are s
On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 13:27 +0200, Nisse Engström wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:10:17 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 11:43 +0200, clive wrote:
> >> or you could write it likes this '
> >> echo " $day ";
> >>
> >> much easier to read, but slightly more taxing on th
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:04:25 -0700, Paul Novitski wrote:
> It's so interesting that some details bug some people and others bug
> others. In an expression such as this:
>
> echo '' . $day
> . '';
>
> ...I count eight transitions (instances of switching between PHP
> syntax and output
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:04:25 -0700, Paul Novitski wrote:
> It's so interesting that some details bug some people and others bug
> others. In an expression such as this:
>
> echo '' . $day
> . '';
>
> ...I count eight transitions (instances of switching between PHP
> syntax and outpu
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:10:17 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 11:43 +0200, clive wrote:
>> or you could write it likes this '
>> echo " $day ";
>>
>> much easier to read, but slightly more taxing on the server.
>
> Also slightly more taxing on standards since single quot
At 10:23 AM -0700 10/26/06, Paul Novitski wrote:
For a robust general CMS, though, I want a completely unambiguous
demarcation of replacable content.
At 10/27/2006 09:01 AM, tedd wrote:
If you want "a completely unambiguous demarcation" then use xml with
a defined schema. I don't think you c
At 1:09 PM -0400 10/26/06, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 11:24 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 1:04 AM -0700 10/26/06, Paul Novitski wrote:
>At 10/25/2006 11:24 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
>>I use a tag based template system, there's no PHP in my content so my
>>content files for the mos
At 10:23 AM -0700 10/26/06, Paul Novitski wrote:
At 10/26/2006 08:24 AM, tedd wrote:
I think a would work just as well -- seems so
old-world to me. :-)
By default, div is a block element and span is inline, so span
seemed like the natural fit for a sentence fragment. I don't think
there'
At 10/26/2006 08:24 AM, tedd wrote:
At 1:04 AM -0700 10/26/06, Paul Novitski wrote:
My comparable example (but in an HTML context) would look like:
Hello FIRSTNAME,
where the engine replaces the content of the span with the value
from the database based on a match of 'span.firstName'
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 11:43 +0200, clive wrote:
> Paul Novitski wrote:
> > It's so interesting that some details bug some people and others bug
> > others. In an expression such as this:
> >
> > echo '' . $day .
> > '';
> or you could write it likes this '
> echo " $day ";
>
> much
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 11:24 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 1:04 AM -0700 10/26/06, Paul Novitski wrote:
> >At 10/25/2006 11:24 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >>I use a tag based template system, there's no PHP in my content so my
> >>content files for the most part just look like more HTML.
> >
> >This is a
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 10:50 +0100, Arpad Ray wrote:
> Incidentally, a nice side effect of heredoc is that some editors (like
> vim) recognise << accordingly.
That's really cool. Never even thought to do that. I wonder if anyone
has done the footwork for joe to save me some time *hehe*.
Cheers,
R
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 01:04 -0700, Paul Novitski wrote:
> At 10/25/2006 11:24 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >Now, the thing that I dislike about heredoc for such small strings is
> >the switching between heredoc mode and the switching back. It's ugly on
> >the scale of switching in and out of PHP ta
tedd wrote:
I think a would work just as well -- seems so old-world
to me. :-)
The span element is in no way old-world. Spans and divs are two
different things with different goals. A div is a block-level element,
whereas spans are inline. Spans are intended for stylistic changes that
spa
At 1:04 AM -0700 10/26/06, Paul Novitski wrote:
At 10/25/2006 11:24 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
I use a tag based template system, there's no PHP in my content so my
content files for the most part just look like more HTML.
This is a different topic, but also one close to my heart. Yes, I
too
Incidentally, a nice side effect of heredoc is that some editors (like
vim) recognise <
Paul Novitski wrote:
It's so interesting that some details bug some people and others bug
others. In an expression such as this:
echo '' . $day .
'';
or you could write it likes this '
echo " $day ";
much easier to read, but slightly more taxing on the server.
--
Regards,
Clive
At 10/25/2006 11:24 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
Now, the thing that I dislike about heredoc for such small strings is
the switching between heredoc mode and the switching back. It's ugly on
the scale of switching in and out of PHP tags.
It's so interesting that some details bug some people and o
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 22:53 -0700, Paul Novitski wrote:
> > > At 10/25/2006 04:09 PM, Stut wrote:
> > > > print ' > > > if ($selected_day_of_month == $day)
> > > > print ' selected';
> > > > print '>'.$day.'';
>
> On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 17:35 -0700, Paul Novitski
> At 10/25/2006 04:09 PM, Stut wrote:
> > print ' > if ($selected_day_of_month == $day)
> > print ' selected';
> > print '>'.$day.'';
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 17:35 -0700, Paul Novitski wrote:
> print <<< hdDay
> $day
>
> hdDa
20 matches
Mail list logo
