Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106666 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 86401 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2019 18:32:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-ua1-f67.google.com) (209.85.222.67) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2019 18:32:47 -0000 Received: by mail-ua1-f67.google.com with SMTP id f9so2147812uaj.4 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 09:02:58 -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=jn93HGR9ebAuy+yr04uoiA98yDQws3/HssoGwP5Mt+0=; b=b0/PD9830bzw2n3aPpUQ/Gd2NPaIXiAg7m7EiTJo+KDQk8Az2irYPzYm09y9tX7J3x BE2RYzJ/djNw1y6NGsvoVNbs4vjqRlVKFFhp6kFkKA5wzoIJSjFvQrZmuPEXwauRbAhq wHvuNPTSAL5DFo/6lnsuqLCZHAFZvzWYLbJDxNRmQG0KTsLMxL+k01nbPhHd8/qQYm95 cTP9hz54UeYqt7LW3WStxqT4C/pvi18+ALKOhjQyg6Kem87taM5laHuA+BGAKQe6VVW6 6v7dZshVlbAp0F6wpYcdflb9J5NeuClGPPqF8Ef3HaYvYzm8KEQJJV6lmzgjZj/0VpPp aV9A== 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=jn93HGR9ebAuy+yr04uoiA98yDQws3/HssoGwP5Mt+0=; b=MfpveYQPqEA5ho3URnWrpJkRFdcHUYV1o8esuJAR+7GJX4Z3udzUHC4nR1oLpG2pMV GwDhwU/qDa9q2RgnrJbPnUxB1k7y7NfZ9d6/KXYgwIJsnEqa5Gqnmy+CvmuVzeMp9pwW wdxjrnN0yXu74F6J3XK7EBPslJ1QuzN80+aiAlFf4r6peLE6wxDXa9UD88RftxLoXwcm ReUWhY+lpqsRohAf5YkIrbDRZk5zgjvm3u3zhKGD77nOp0VwVd219AXm+5L8A+yB5f2P kBMOXvkSQ7SozKhGQT7WKvS4G7SmoBsrHfwDdTtuXc4mMAO48PgtadRJMMlW8XbUNYDl wDbg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVCU0dILo35ODZw+aw8PURCJrnQ4dvFVE7aP+XSCpo14WL+Zdl2 5wpKoAOI9GqtGEQobJ1NY+up2Uljiyk7ee6JdNs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqybpfX+EBYHpelsvKpEeu50Fv2yAXRUEVG3OHhmDVsroHmOzfG8PDXV0GB+dIaEiy4p4jAKlxwgVGtc+72ZrD4= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:7714:: with SMTP id z20mr18017179uaq.34.1566316977978; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000001d54e5a$02ac09f0$08041dd0$@roze.lv> <2b5588d6-d667-321f-22f1-46a22bb797c5@korulczyk.pl> <000001d54ea3$eb3480a0$c19d81e0$@roze.lv> <000301d54ead$b43e7b00$1cbb7100$@roze.lv> <59378662-77ca-0779-10cb-c25acf1b45ef@korulczyk.pl> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 12:02:46 -0400 Message-ID: To: Peter Kokot Cc: "G. P. B." , PHP internals list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000140b4905908e97ab" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler) --000000000000140b4905908e97ab Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:50 AM Peter Kokot wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 14:51, G. P. B. wrote: > > > > Hello internals, > > > > This RFC has been declined with 56% in favour (30/54) and 44% against > > (24/54). > > > > Two side notes to this: > > > > - I seriously don't appreciate that the RFC has been edited *WITHOUT* > my > > knowledge to add endorsement names on the counterargument to the RFC on > the > > RFC itself when the appropriate place would have been the counter > argument > > document. > > - As it has no clear supra majority (nor against nor in favour), this > > topic should probably be put to discussion again in some way or form at a > > later stage. > > > > Best regards > > > > George P. Banyard > > The number of things that got wrong in these two RFCs is > extraordinary. What was done incorrectly in regards to the second RFC? > If anything the community, the internals and everyone > involved got through a good thinking process so we have learned > something from this in any way. I appreciate all your time and effort > to move this thing forward and even for being so respectful towards > Zeev, Rasmus, Dmitry, and Sara who have endorsed keeping them in the > PHP and to repeat the voting with a better solution in this RFC. > > You say that like being respectful to people with opinion different than yours is something worth commending, when it should be the default behavior. In other words, you are implying that anyone that opposed this RFC didn't deserve respect, so, congratulations to everyone for showing it anyway. > I think that now we need to fix the documentations out there. short > tags will stay in PHP for at least another 10+ years, so maybe we > should simply consider them not a part of legacy but a special kind of > a feature. There are some parts in PHP comments and docs that needs > this fixed and sorted out better a bit (probably - specially in the > ini files itself etc). > > I think we should still discourage their use. We should be explicit in the documentation that code which uses short tags might not be portable. Just because they exist, doesn't mean we should suddenly change our treatment of them when it comes to best practices. If there is any documentation that doesn't make this clear, submit a bug report. If you really feel that we should start treating short tags as totally legitimate, then someone else with better knowledge of how to proceed with that will need to provide advice. > -- > Peter Kokot > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Chase Peeler chasepeeler@gmail.com --000000000000140b4905908e97ab--