| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kirill
Smarty Rookie
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 8
Location: Estonia
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:10 pm Post subject: hyped about 3.2 |
 |
|
Hey mohrt & co. Just wanted to commend you guys on the fantastic job. We've been having issues with whitespace, with this fella popping its ugly head here and there.
So, I just installed the 3.2 dev version and it's whitespace issue free! I dunno if my complaining is to blame here but thanks guys! |
|
| Back to top |
|
rodneyrehm
Administrator
Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 698
Location: Germany, border to Switzerland
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please note that the 3.2 dev is a pure playground. It does not underly the rules of the trunk in the terms of always reflecting a working state. We regularly commit broken features that may very well break Smarty completely.
We do not recommend using the 3.2dev branch for production. Not even for testing, at this point!
That said, what are the whitespace issues you have been experiencing?
_________________
Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kirill
Smarty Rookie
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 8
Location: Estonia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodneyrehm wrote: | Please note that the 3.2 dev is a pure playground. It does not underly the rules of the trunk in the terms of always reflecting a working state. We regularly commit broken features that may very well break Smarty completely.
We do not recommend using the 3.2dev branch for production. Not even for testing, at this point!
That said, what are the whitespace issues you have been experiencing? |
Yeah, I know. But so far, so good.
The whitespace issue was that smarty was adding this character http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/feff/index.htm to random places. I don't know which one of those specifically, but for instance chrome identified it as & # 65279 ; (can't write it all together, phpBB interprets it as a space) while Firefox's firebug displayed a whitespace tab.
usually it was instead of nocache tag in the resulting markup
We're not really using advanced smarty commands, nor have any custom plugins. So far it has been holding up. Any idea when it will be in beta? |
|
| Back to top |
|
rodneyrehm
Administrator
Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 698
Location: Germany, border to Switzerland
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe Uwe can shed some light on this. I for one have no clue how this should not have worked in 3.1.
_________________
Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kirill
Smarty Rookie
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 8
Location: Estonia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodneyrehm wrote: | | Maybe Uwe can shed some light on this. I for one have no clue how this should not have worked in 3.1. |
I can switch back for testing purposes to see where it happens. I can do it tomorrow |
|
| Back to top |
|
U.Tews
Administrator
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 4177
Location: Hamburg / Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Note that Smarty 2 and Smarty 3 did require that template source files are stored without BOM's. Otherwise you could see the BOM's in the output.
Starting with Smarty 3.2 we will remove BOM's from template source.
As Rodney said the 3.2.DEV branch is currently a playground and there is no guarantee that it is in working condition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kirill
Smarty Rookie
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 8
Location: Estonia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| U.Tews wrote: | Note that Smarty 2 and Smarty 3 did require that template source files are stored without BOM's. Otherwise you could see the BOM's in the output.
Starting with Smarty 3.2 we will remove BOM's from template source.
As Rodney said the 3.2.DEV branch is currently a playground and there is no guarantee that it is in working condition. |
I'll check it out, maybe I do have BOM here and there |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kirill
Smarty Rookie
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 8
Location: Estonia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
looks like it was BOM all along.
well-well, seems like the almighty christian-made UltraEdit is not so good with handling BOM. Thanks for the tips guys, looks like I got the whitespace issue sorted out and working with 3.1.8 too. I'll be moving back to the stable version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
