Recently I published a new PHP MVC Framework. It is ASP.NET like,
object oriented, event driven, component based, with AJAX support,
I18N support and is highly customizable. It also has very good
documentation and plenty of examples.

Any opinions on it are welcomed.

http://qphp.net

> http://qphp.net

Not usable in Konqueror.

> Not usable in Konqueror.

To be more precise (and more constructive):

None of the http headers state that you use Xhtml.

Furthermore, the example pages say that they are xhtml transitional (in
an xml attribute), but do not even consistently quote attributes (like
href=# instead of href="#"). Firefox does try to make sense out of it,
but frankly it shouldn't.

Are those IDs in the selectbox real database IDs? I would never use a
framework that does that. Sorry.

In short, it looks very much like ASP.NET: you should trust the
framework to generate proper HTML for you (bad idea with MS-based
products) and therefore it is written mainly for IE. You even seem to be
relying on browsers sniffing the content-type, which is a really bad idea.

There are zillions of frameworks out there. Yours has probably brought
you some valuable insights, but I do not think it really adds something
to the amount we already have. But it probably is a good start. Good to
see that you thought of providing documentation.

Good luck!

Thanks for the comments. Konqueror has never been tested as it has
very small market share, less than 0.1%. Browsers that have been
tested are:
- Internet Explorer 6, 7
- Firefox 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
- Mozilla 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
- Opera 7.50, 8.0, 8.50, 9.0, 9.20
- Safari 3.0.4
- Avant Browser 10.2, 11.5
- Maxthon 1.5, 1.6, 2.0
- SeaMonkey 1.1.7


Although there are zillions of frameworks out there, there are very
few worth mentioning. I hope to qualify in Top 10, although may be too
late. ASP.NET-like frameworks are also very few, and there are pros
and cons to offer such a thing to the LAMP community. Such frameworks
really simplify the development and the maintenance, but the community
may dislike everything that comes from MS even as ideas.

Although QPHP.NET has 3 years of internal experience and is very well
tested, I published it as version 0.9 and hope by the time reaching
1.0 to become pretty good framework not only for our commercial
projects, but for the PHP community as well. Basically with this post
I am trying to figure out what features are considered valuable and to
put it in the next versions.

Full XHTML support will be added in the next version, Yahoo and Google
sites are still not XHTML based and I guess there are reasons for
that, so this feature won't bring too much value to the framework at
this time.

alexander.petrov@abv.bg schrieb:
> Thanks for the comments. Konqueror has never been tested as it has
> very small market share, less than 0.1%. Browsers that have been
> tested are:
> - Internet Explorer 6, 7
> - Firefox 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
> - Mozilla 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
> - Opera 7.50, 8.0, 8.50, 9.0, 9.20
> - Safari 3.0.4
> - Avant Browser 10.2, 11.5
> - Maxthon 1.5, 1.6, 2.0
> - SeaMonkey 1.1.7

Browser testing is something you do AFTER this
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...Inline&group=0
checked and clean, not instead.

Hello,

alexander.petrov@abv.bg wrote:
> Thanks for the comments. Konqueror has never been tested as it has
> very small market share, less than 0.1%. Browsers that have been
> tested are:
> - Internet Explorer 6, 7
> - Firefox 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
> - Mozilla 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
> - Opera 7.50, 8.0, 8.50, 9.0, 9.20
> - Safari 3.0.4
> - Avant Browser 10.2, 11.5
> - Maxthon 1.5, 1.6, 2.0
> - SeaMonkey 1.1.7
>

As stated before, first make sure your code is valid, then take into
account changes needed by the various web browsers.

>
> Although there are zillions of frameworks out there, there are very
> few worth mentioning. I hope to qualify in Top 10, although may be too
> late. ASP.NET-like frameworks are also very few, and there are pros
> and cons to offer such a thing to the LAMP community. Such frameworks
> really simplify the development and the maintenance, but the community
> may dislike everything that comes from MS even as ideas.
>
> Although QPHP.NET has 3 years of internal experience and is very well
> tested, I published it as version 0.9 and hope by the time reaching
> 1.0 to become pretty good framework not only for our commercial
> projects, but for the PHP community as well. Basically with this post
> I am trying to figure out what features are considered valuable and to
> put it in the next versions.
>
> Full XHTML support will be added in the next version, Yahoo and Google
> sites are still not XHTML based and I guess there are reasons for
> that, so this feature won't bring too much value to the framework at
> this time.

Most "large" websites - such as Google and Yahoo - don't really care
about web standards. Their purpose is to provide a nice looking and
easily maintainable website. Writing valid XHTML and CSS that works on
every browser is time consuming and that is one thing most companies
don't have or don't want to spend on a website. As long as it works,
it's OK.
One of my previous jobs was with a web development company and they had
their own internal developed framework created before XHTML was
available. Upgrading took too much time and internal work does not pay
the bills. Today they are still not producing XHTML valid websites.

If you want to provide a good framework you must realize that most users
will be amateur or professional web designers and developers who do want
XHTML and CSS valid websites because it makes their portfolio look so
much nicer. The are working independently and don't have to worry to
much about the time they have to complete a project.
From my experience and corresponding with other web developers I
noticed most of them use either custom build frameworks or things like
Drupal or Textpattern because they are great frameworks that provide
quality code.

- Jensen

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:51:35 +0100, Jensen Somers
<jensen.somers@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> alexander.petrov@abv.bg wrote:
>> Thanks for the comments. Konqueror has never been tested as it has
>> very small market share, less than 0.1%. Browsers that have been
>> tested are:
>> - Internet Explorer 6, 7
>> - Firefox 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
>> - Mozilla 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
>> - Opera 7.50, 8.0, 8.50, 9.0, 9.20
>> - Safari 3.0.4
>> - Avant Browser 10.2, 11.5
>> - Maxthon 1.5, 1.6, 2.0
>> - SeaMonkey 1.1.7
>>
>
> As stated before, first make sure your code is valid, then take into
> account changes needed by the various web browsers.
>
>> Although there are zillions of frameworks out there, there are very
>> few worth mentioning. I hope to qualify in Top 10, although may be too
>> late. ASP.NET-like frameworks are also very few, and there are pros
>> and cons to offer such a thing to the LAMP community. Such frameworks
>> really simplify the development and the maintenance, but the community
>> may dislike everything that comes from MS even as ideas.
>> Although QPHP.NET has 3 years of internal experience and is very well
>> tested, I published it as version 0.9 and hope by the time reaching
>> 1.0 to become pretty good framework not only for our commercial
>> projects, but for the PHP community as well. Basically with this post
>> I am trying to figure out what features are considered valuable and to
>> put it in the next versions.
>> Full XHTML support will be added in the next version, Yahoo and Google
>> sites are still not XHTML based and I guess there are reasons for
>> that, so this feature won't bring too much value to the framework at
>> this time.
>
> Most "large" websites - such as Google and Yahoo - don't really care
> about web standards. Their purpose is to provide a nice looking and
> easily maintainable website. Writing valid XHTML and CSS that works on
> every browser is time consuming and that is one thing most companies
> don't have or don't want to spend on a website. As long as it works,
> it's OK.
> One of my previous jobs was with a web development company and they had
> their own internal developed framework created before XHTML was
> available. Upgrading took too much time and internal work does not pay
> the bills. Today they are still not producing XHTML valid websites.
>
> If you want to provide a good framework you must realize that most users
> will be amateur or professional web designers and developers who do want
> XHTML and CSS valid websites because it makes their portfolio look so
> much nicer. The are working independently and don't have to worry to
> much about the time they have to complete a project.
> From my experience and corresponding with other web developers I
> noticed most of them use either custom build frameworks or things like
> Drupal or Textpattern because they are great frameworks that provide
> quality code.

While the discussion moves that much towards HTML it's getting offtopic:
XHTML is NOT the standard anyone must follow. HTML4.01 Strict is very OK
too, and a lot easier then _real_ XHTML (not XHTML served as tag soup).
XHTML has its specific uses and advantages, of which almost none you can
really use in production due to lack of UA support. The XHTML hype is long
over, people have calmed down, and most serious developers have gone back
to HTML4.01 Strict.

However, a flexible framework should still support XHTML (and output valid
code) if the user for some reason desires that.
--
Rik Wasmus

On Jan 19, 4:43 am, alexander.pet...@abv.bg wrote:
> Recently I published a new PHP MVC Framework. It is ASP.NET like,
> object oriented, event driven, component based, with AJAX support,
> I18N support and is highly customizable. It also has very good
> documentation and plenty of examples.
>
> Any opinions on it are welcomed.
>
> http://qphp.net

What type of feedback are you looking for - just the output or the
actual structure of the PHP programming, etc.

For example, if you're looking for the PHP stuff - I'd suggest getting
away from using global variables and check into the registry
programming pattern... thats just IMHO.

-aaron