Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106396
Return-Path: <george.banyard@gmail.com>
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 14655 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2019 20:01:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail-vs1-f42.google.com) (209.85.217.42)
by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2019 20:01:20 -0000
Received: by mail-vs1-f42.google.com with SMTP id h28so58812085vsl.12
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 10:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc;
bh=rH1VZfmen/j5BlO6URz88vtDrGN+EOV7AXlq6rjtqVU=;
b=sBxKkDra2yhGmb+6BgkAZvKnHXeRW5K3mptpmserHv+NyMJ+NMNXamNpv9XAHlbH+F
MAIBDhvnXg+7crI/kw+KlOXwwCyFbdUWw3rOeeyBmbl+dkyEbQaF3KlTT+9xITRo/Igw
y142+74Nr1V4s7A7/Tlov8KaNSHoTeCCaYM7/hi7z7p3jEFGlEYJECXOB+TZTRfcYvoI
vLgnY+f1DCQLDf27XSs4ChIHsTAmTn6cnd4rEwCioZCUWaHqX861mQ2SQ5xhNh9bKUzj
7Oik6t+aE5vstcWJqYim3L9Cc7iNR5LgfUBOXF5hw6tiigO6od31wTLRuoir5pZ3fKND
1ehA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=rH1VZfmen/j5BlO6URz88vtDrGN+EOV7AXlq6rjtqVU=;
b=QDc8zfQBRu/ZlPe1GeSjJ9AYwHI0lcpm/uQ/KOHwKRcdecZnfrcewIpAzF7s1XTc0A
REPW1u2h7ehJyYOZOoeIgC8VU+rCMBOlU+z5utz+JMdVBLhqVzlpsc0CJApwwOm9rLd3
Uo2jGN33QBDRZHTJJieO7D1jWHHkwXYaS0F88Ykyg4kZhriOAmsNYMn4zki10Mt9xLEe
8E18fLJ2ShPHtZMAJraNEq9ct4D6qS83XcmLBPs5SebFNWpcUDUz6esl3PXpkQe4UXLa
YggCdTlnjeYxbk3Sz/lxrQogEep8Lvsrm3jSngwuUXDevwa154Aez81lUHG5cZfbyrW2
04Jw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU2Qvlo3aS4yZLpZuZuFr2y+aMVDIS8utZ+z8ZTxUqCF1hNw5xb
cG2WM7Z7QrMdKi4NrnZcxB6f6XyQhFN1WNiGamI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxCwkx3ytNE3EZ0kwA1O3rt8cp0VpPgWIgIbceJ6dtp1tgVFMNOJSfy+nI3TATYm3785utyT9pLOvg7Pr6wtZU=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:fb18:: with SMTP id d24mr3250710vsr.59.1565112481555;
Tue, 06 Aug 2019 10:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
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> <CAPKYkKwf+YF5+AT1L50FfJp+QgU9WWdrH7Y2m2XNZZR1Q4wQ7Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPKYkKwf+YF5+AT1L50FfJp+QgU9WWdrH7Y2m2XNZZR1Q4wQ7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 19:27:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFPFaMKQNUEg3Qy6ofcUKO=LDQhKkC-j5=ExQYHopDw9vSmTow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com>
Cc: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007f2842058f7625e9"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again
From: george.banyard@gmail.com ("G. P. B.")
--0000000000007f2842058f7625e9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:25, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
In a sense yes, however this RFC is a vote on the implementation which
would have landed with the previous one but was not the one voted.
So you can disregard the result of the previous one not the controversial
discussion it generated after the vote was accepted.
Hope this clarifies everything.
Best regards
George P. Banyard
--0000000000007f2842058f7625e9--