Azu

I'm pretty sure PHP6 is already released, but it's a beta version still buggy. I'm guessing the official release will be when they have worked most of the bugs out of it?

If it's DNS poisoning, there's not much you can do other then have your users access your website directly by IP instead of domain name. Although I think it's more likely that they simply found an exploit in a PHP script or something and used it to put a redirect into your HTML.

Yes like [underlinetag][nocode]This text has been underlined using [underlinetag][/underlinetag][/nocode][/underlinetag] I would really like a less hacky way of getting it to work. If the strings are pre-chosen there will only be so many of them (bug/limitation). And if somebody puts one or more of them in their post it could really mess stuff up (bug/exploit). So I will have to scan all of the text beforehand, for all of these strings to make sure they aren't in it (performance hit). I was hoping maybe somebody might be able to work some regex magic for me ^^

In your link to the feed validator, it clearly shows the errors in it. W3C has also detected a problem in it http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ffbtest1.com%2Fcb%2Frss_test%2Fbug.xml&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 Try fixing all of the problems that these validators have detected. It should work then.

Found this by Googling for about 1 minute I'm pretty sure that it can do exactly what you're looking for (use PHP to read the content of a PDF file) enjoy ^^ http://www.conradish.net/pdfhi.php.txt

Hello I'm working on being my own BBcode parser, but I would like to get this out of the way before continuing. Please can somebody tell me a good way to implement [nocode] tags? The only ways I can think of are very bad/hacky solutions I think and have a chance of getting messed up. Hmm I was going to post an example but it seems this forum doesn't support [nocode] :/ but basically if there is an opening element before the nocode, and a closing one INSIDE IT, it would get messed up.. The only way around this I can think of is like randomly making a string of random characters and putting the stuff between the nocode tags into a subarray of that and then deleting it from the text and replacing it with the string of random characters, and later putting them back in after all the interpreting is done.. but I think that this is an extremely hacky of doing it and probably not very good performance either.. so I don't want to do it this way so I'm wandering if someone can please tell me a good way to do it..

Since you keep talking about XHTML 1.0 and how it is different from 1.1.. I just thought I should let you know that I am using XHTML 1.1 not 1.0. Just in case that changes the answer to my question. Also, what is the DTD for XHTML 2.0? I would like to always use whatever the newest one is so if there is a 2.0 I would like to use that instead of 1.1. One more thing.. what will happen if I serve the 2.0 as text/html to IE? What kind of problems should I expect from that? I'm thinking of just finding a way to make my site convert all of the output to HTML 4.0 strict if the browser doesn't supposed XHTML, instead of just sending it XHTML with a text/html mimetype. Would there be any benefits to doing this? Or should I just keep sending it XHTML?

Oh okay thanks.. but aren't there at least some kind of rendering speed benefits? Since it doesn't need all that built in automatic-error-repairing stuff? Or is the only benefit really just that it is more strict? x_x

Thanks I set up my site a long time ago to send the xhtml mimetype to browsers that support it, and the html mimetype to ones that don't (like IE) With the ones that don't support it, they are going to be using the HTML parsing engine anyways, so it won't matter whether or not <u> is defined for them (it should work either way). I just want a way to make it valid for the browsers that support XHTML, since I'm pretty sure the XHTML parsers are supposed to die() if they encounter invalid code (and <u> is invalid in XHTML since it is not defined as a valid tag) so I was hoping there was a way to define it as a valid tag.. I thought that XML can do that and that XHTML is HTML + XML..

Thanks, I wasn't asking how to get more bandwidth though. I just want an extensible version of HTML. I thought that XHTML was supposed to be extensible.

Hmm. Well I quit school all-together about 5 years ago when I was 10, never went to collage or took any classes for any kind of programming language (either in real life or online course) and yet I can code just fine. So I'm really not sure why you are so set on convincing us that we need a degree in order to be competent. In any case, I doubt many people here are going to agree with you on that, so unless you have a good reason behind the claims you are making, not really much point in going on about it, no offense..

Okay thanks. Well of XHTML isn't extensible.. then what web language IS? o_O

The code you posted is NOT for inserting values. It is for updating them. Try replace that word "update" with "insert" and see for yourself. It will error out.

So XHTML doesn't have any of the benefits of XML except for being strict..?

If you change the UPDATE to INSERT you will probably get an error. The syntax you're using there is for updating not inserting.

Try setting the columns to not null and make sure no default value is set. This should fix your problem with blank values being inserted. Also, you really shouldn't be storing the e-mails as a hash unless you don't mind not being able to e-mail them. The whole point of storing a hash of something is to make it impossible (or at least very hard) to ever find out what it is. Also note that SHA1 is a hashing algorithm, which has nothing whatsoever to do with encryption; when you encrypt data, you can later decrypt it.

How do you use PHP to detect if your webpage is being embedded in an iframe by someone?

Just remember that any idiot can easily just save the page and remove that tag, so obviously something like this must never be used for security.

Hello I'm sorry if this has already been asked/answered somewhere but I haven't been able to find it if it has.. One of the strengths of XHTML is that you can define your own tags in it right? I am trying to define one called <u> so that I can use <u> and it will be valid (I know I can just use something like <div style="text:underlined"> or whatever (which I am doing for now) but <u> is much smaller/less bandwidth ^^). Please can somebody tell me how to do this?

Make sure that you test it in the browser it says it works on, to avoid false negatives.

I wish there was a language that could be written in quickly like PHP but could have the performance benefits of being a compiled language..

I'm pretty sure that in the link I just posted it explains how to make it work in Firefox..

Yes there is. Here you go, all of the information you could possibly need on it enjoy! http://messengersays.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5B410F7FD930829E!1379.entry

That's like saying PHP is similar to BBCode. There's NO comparison.