Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106395
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFPFaML19B_RehrUQLEy_oFae-H5r3+BpUGg=GF1js83cJpJqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKxHkQojFnCs09htRFvTrV_SReQV7YVo6RxRSmuN9H_Q0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALKiJKrXatW9Va0bjsUQD+TCCge=HcMzyV8Uf+rq+_s9xoyyuQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFPFaMJKq7rqY0ZSPuimWVTY8ZZc=jXJS3__fNRnvBfp+W3PXg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFPFaMJKq7rqY0ZSPuimWVTY8ZZc=jXJS3__fNRnvBfp+W3PXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:25:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKwf+YF5+AT1L50FfJp+QgU9WWdrH7Y2m2XNZZR1Q4wQ7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "G. P. B." <george.banyard@gmail.com>
Cc: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005818b0058f761c17"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--0000000000005818b0058f761c17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:19 PM G. P. B. <george.banyard@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean
>> the
>> > original RFC that passed is still in effect?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Yes, this is really ambiguous, and risks the situation being even more
>> confusing than it was before.
>>
>> The "No" column on this RFC already includes people who voted "Yes" on the
>> previous version; is this an indication that they have changed their mind
>> about removing short tags, or that they prefer the original proposal?
>>
>> I think we urgently need to clarify this, and may need to reset the vote
>> with one or more clearer questions.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Rowan Collins
>> [IMSoP]
>
>
> This RFC supersedes the previous one as stated in the the RFC itself : "
> This RFC supersedes the previous one and proposes a different deprecation
> approach." meaning that the previous one is void.
> I don't know why this is ambiguous and needs to be said once again.
>
> Just to clarify - the existence of this RFC effectively means the original
never existed.


> Best regards
>
> George P. Banyard
>


-- 
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--0000000000005818b0058f761c17--