Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105506
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
	s=turbo-smtp; d=php.net;
	h=Received:Received:X-TurboSMTP-Tracking:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Google-Smtp-Source:X-Received:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:X-Gmail-Original-Message-Id:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type;
	b=xj3S1Ry7HcrmntYFeiUpISYD6DVcFOKXSNtVQu2OvlwFRc+cha3+XyVhv1ugJ2
	tyZplOUZR+wbmOPL7GafYV4n9cCQ+VPKb6Bj7P6itHCFBF4zP1SUQWaIAPJaEfdI
	xiHBmkwfl2l7izz+lr/NaldYF27ma9lcoq1//g7/+fu+c=;
MIME-Version: 1.0
l.gmail.com> <000401d4fac8$ae592cf0$0b0b86d0$@roze.lv> <CAJHtznz-Dm7ft6qJ6Y6sjnaL4G0cwVVJyakxr_zprhxQzqUkVg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c-Qo6_MDyjmUyavcB_iLvh-0J=NyZkPiRjmyHv7Mp2e+g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c-Qo6_MDyjmUyavcB_iLvh-0J=NyZkPiRjmyHv7Mp2e+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 15:29:11 +0300
X-Gmail-Original-Message-Id: <CAJHtznxKdeb4Zz=wBDFkEDNVChiGZGYDphxW9YLQK-QbNG83nA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJHtznxKdeb4Zz=wBDFkEDNVChiGZGYDphxW9YLQK-QbNG83nA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Reinis Rozitis <r@roze.lv>, "G. P. B." <george.banyard@gmail.com>,  PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003116c20587aa6faf"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags
From: zeev@php.net (Zeev Suraski)

--0000000000003116c20587aa6faf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:17 AM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Keep in mind that for example the FFI RFC passed with something like 60%
> majority, even lower than this RFC. I think you're cherry-picking a bit
> here, when it comes to what should and shouldn't pass ;)
>

You're right, but I think that's a price well worth paying (i.e., I'd be
absolutely fine if the FFI RFC did not pass, as well as some other RFCs I
was fond of, if it meant that controversial RFCs were a thing of the past -
at least in terms of passing).


> Process wise we're in a bit of an unchartered territory here, but I don't
>> think we should let the headache involved with figuring out how to reverse
>> this decision force us to impose this on our users.  It's better to go
>> through this unpleasantry now than deal with the backlash later.
>>
>
> I think that process-wise (if we can't agree on landing some variation of
> this, as I've suggested in a separate thread) the right thing to do would
> be to draft a new RFC that overrules this one. It can lay out the new
> arguments that have come up in the meantime in an orderly manner and be
> voted separately.
>

If we go in this direction, though, then unless George agrees to withdraw
this RFC and have it replaced by another - it means that the 'status quo'
is that short tags are out, and there must be a 2/3 majority to undo that.
Where we stand - I don't think it's a very likely scenario.  It's clear
there are many folks that want short tags gone - probably more so than
there are those who think they should stay (and not necessarily because
they love them).

Zeev

--0000000000003116c20587aa6faf--