Brad Fitzpatrick (bradfitz) wrote in lj_dev,
Brad Fitzpatrick
bradfitz
lj_dev

Proposal: BML syntax change

I'd like to get comments on changing BML's syntax from:

(=FOO=)
(=FOO .. FOO=)

to:
<?FOO?>
<?FOO .. FOO?>

Main advantage:
-- LJ::ehtml is all we need to escape. No LJ::eall crap.
Side advantage:
-- everybody else is doing it (using <? stuff)... PHP, Mason?, etc, etc, etc... it's kinda the accepted server-parse delimiter now. since i don't give a shit what we use, we could change.

Necessary code change: one or two regexps in the BML parser. We could even make it a bmlp.cfg option to accept either or both syntaxes, for the transitional period.

Votes for and against?

Update: We'd keep LJ::ebml, but only use it for times when we want HTML allowed, but not BML. LJ::eall would eventually die.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 16 comments