Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111533 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 77775 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2020 11:35:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2020 11:35:37 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918B61804AC for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 03:35:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-oi1-f182.google.com (mail-oi1-f182.google.com [209.85.167.182]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 03:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-f182.google.com with SMTP id n128so6582751oif.0 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 03:35:58 -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=igrsZkT5R8hSZuHsRUiOE+GYVl4aCyh7IV5rat6D7Mw=; b=eO7ZmDlRUe1mEy9BHis0UB50p6y2YVBRUb2MztNR3Pipp+34epLg3OIlX6m9knhspa Nkz8IAk0JW+RlfeZC7jLPnaQcclUgb8IvPkKhpnwCfYHXb9ihPncBq+lufTiU9En0E12 VzzfI0dW43Vg9k/8E4e1vhkD1ZXEuaRjHn4rinLNgjEC1iL6bofGSXChAyUdiiAOGyXA yJdQZDSJ1a0LPiyfUK/WxyIS7J2CbzLFWHvIAYHcD5W2oRbZLbuaw0Vn78xj9O+PZAT9 o/yfijDKA3/0McuxPCydmIcKwUGJQMND+MFZKwhma7g7cZ3JWdrwDfcUIke9L2ePkNsv oniQ== 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=igrsZkT5R8hSZuHsRUiOE+GYVl4aCyh7IV5rat6D7Mw=; b=s5hcY0enz8WT0zYKCUsOqd/Ed7i1a3MpbG3HBtPutH293JTLumKyr82i+Gc+Ocls6G Z3EC3zMK4unQ1XvWos5gOgSviw01NU6ykK6mo7vYoenhFLcBaW4OAAd/G+iOhFF2bGUt Kig04tPWoorwjtmgQC5/RkcarfFcqkm/5XnUA/BdGK29UcSaLBfG2hU5CUvLB4hrWKEs mc+YZwFs/2NRGS1uhhzO2KYD+ZgH2cj6gAjW4fxPmdzBi7W4y8lvtV+uGIsXry8k5h7z xAIpLCw7evQEZqlc129EzUzyLwUkfSEgZk6AvtS5Z/eScsJgq0+/wfwPbicGfHO1GJ2T hc/w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533NHT6BeZjuCbt6RCUQmCfBa+5LBdNFW1Ihe3Z0cKZN0W5zU5Hq /x+efQ/C+nXB3aFtE4QCsa5JqeKFLNsn2tyPU6s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzv8RKCaZrPYu1JcWq1qk79nNXWBXzh9pkwxzn4WTwMva/cMaiqb+UrQ3/7+YejjI+Cr2BTGiEobnt4yJGbQik= X-Received: by 2002:aca:e144:: with SMTP id y65mr3896179oig.101.1597487755624; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 03:35:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5cc837df-ab47-628a-d29b-46d7933be973@gmx.net> <3A7CECC3-CDEE-4852-BF4B-4EC7CA1BD538@pmjones.io> <7d6c42a4-53cd-5e38-4ffc-02fe490d66a3@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <7d6c42a4-53cd-5e38-4ffc-02fe490d66a3@gmx.net> Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 12:35:41 +0200 Message-ID: To: Andreas Leathley Cc: PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000035088805ace81a62" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Marcin_Brzuchalski?=) --00000000000035088805ace81a62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Andreas, sob., 15 sie 2020, 12:24 u=C5=BCytkownik Andreas Leathley napisa=C5=82: > On 15.08.20 11:54, Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski wrote: > > I don't think there's anything significant changed in the RFC. I really > > doubt the vote result will change significantly. > > > > Currently you're the only one who wants to wipe the vote and there is n= o > > much voices willing to follow your proposal. > > > > Personally I think extending the vote by additional week is fair enough= . > > Next to Theodore, at least 4 other people in this mailing list have > stated that they think the RFC process should be followed as stated in > the RFC documents (with proper time for discussion and voting, which was > clearly not adhered to) and/or that there is important information > missing in the RFC, which both should lead to a change of the RFC and a > revote. > If you wanna follow democratic rules then first of all 4 is not a quorum. Secondly, you should be fine with additional voting about stopping current RFC vote, right? Cheers, Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski --00000000000035088805ace81a62--