forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <>
Subject Re: including scripting in output files
Date Mon, 04 Nov 2002 17:04:06 GMT
Robert Koberg wrote:

>If your goal is to output PHP, then I think a tool like forrest (or any XSL
>based tool) is not what you want.
>>>From a quick search I did not see any way to create well-formed PHP. The
>workarounds to get the PHP output through XSL would be painful and ugly to say
>the least.
>This, in my view, is a failing of PHP - it can't be well-formed. JSP had the
>same problem but SUN introduced well-formed JSP.
>I would say that minimally you need to understand basic XML to use a tool like
>Maybe more searching would turn up  something like:
>blah blah

According to, 
following should work:

<script language="php">
    echo ("some editors (like FrontPage) don't like processing instructions");


>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:Ken.Coar@Golux.Com]
>>Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:17 AM
>>Subject: Re: including scripting in output files
>>Steven Noels wrote:
>>>I don't follow your argument about developers vs designers
>>>though: real authors wouldn't put <?php fragments into their
>>>content, won't they?
>>why not?  see the bottom.
>>>Nope, an XML course hasn't been included into the Forrest
>>>docs - as with Anakia, Stylebook and other site-generation
>>>related Apache tools... would this be useful?
>>i am reading this as facetious.  the above seems tantamount to
>>the statement 'in order to use forrest [effectively], you must
>>know xml.'  that's not going to win popularity contests.  i think
>>it most likely that people coming to forrest (or at least trying
>>to) will have even less xml experience than i.  they don't *want*
>>to know xml; they want to know what they need to put where in order
>>to make their site look/behave the way they want.  many will be
>>content with <section>, <title>, <p> and the like, at least for
>>starters.  they're going to want to use forrest because it makes
>>their job *easier*, not because they can use it as an excuse to
>>enhance their resumes.
>>as for php:  take a look at <url:> and
>><url:>.  26% (nine million plus) of web
>>sites use php.  do you think making interoperability easy should be
>>a goal for forrest?  i do.. but i'm only a user.

View raw message