Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111549 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 4822 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2020 07:41:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2020 07:41:46 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F2B1804AC for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 23:42:19 -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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from smtp.simply.com (smtp.simply.com [94.231.106.220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 23:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-f51.google.com (mail-wr1-f51.google.com [209.85.221.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by smtp.simply.com (Simply.com) with ESMTPSA id 4BTnfJ3FmZz61Pc for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 08:42:16 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=givoni.dk; s=unoeuro; t=1597560136; bh=/C2Rg3AtH58I9/UHyP0xoFqklLZk8mXTzCw/V1aw7dM=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=RH4ai6dw9wRa4ZIHeliW3vUuLhT05LlbuedndnJN0iV8mUUTDfReB5LKLEzUhDLa0 yOQM+fbLBg3xwumBdkyGNTPRlNcg7ya7coYNnJCcC0+I+R+PrHwkvJcz/etDJw1vCr SQMR0eDTDXD5ijr4yrlnK9d8Tlgt3ziuBqWH+zqg= Received: by mail-wr1-f51.google.com with SMTP id a14so11830718wra.5 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 23:42:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53346RTRuQsdYsc8fzIs1mfwe9RTOMXoAao+NV8W+uR5Xd4dnorL 77qkOrf9LlNU8PH/5tiHF76vkkjXbuRY2xhFuRA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxU4WHDlYB/Y2ws12g6khBEKTYEWabpZyZRcN0zzrHlUwmXko3dCgnM1hwA3DL7V4atPUt/MuxRWbE9tuezGO0= X-Received: by 2002:adf:9125:: with SMTP id j34mr10619293wrj.157.1597560135979; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 23:42:15 -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: Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 08:42:04 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Benjamin Eberlei Cc: Benjamin Morel , =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGFlbCBWb8WZw63FoWVrIC0gxIxWVVQgRkVM?= , PHP Internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: jakob@givoni.dk (Jakob Givoni) > > We are working to integrate our arguments in favour of enclosing from tha= t Derick and I made in this and the previous thread into the RFC at the mom= ent, as the lack of them is a valid point of criticism. > > Additionally, Derick and I are waiting for word from Sara and Gabriel at = the moment, but we suggested to close and reset the vote to wait until the = discussion period is over on Tuesday to accommodate the criticism of us pre= maturely starting the vote (by accident, not intentionally). We will take t= he time to update the RFC with all discussions from here and the previous t= hread with arguments that have come up. Can I make a suggestion? Make the new or updated RFC a primary vote on: "Should attributes be enclosed in delimiters?" This is what we're really discussing and that would make the intention and everything that follows much clearer. Then the secondary votes can be on the preferred block syntax. Voting no means to keep @@ (unless there's another RFC for voting to change that for another syntax without ending delimiter). We've had two RFC's now that both had the primary vote being basically "Are you ok to vote?" - A vote on whether or not to vote??? Maybe it's not a coincidence that both results were considered disasters by a big chunk of voters. The primary vote should be on the RFC and the RFC should have a clear intention. Once you vote yes to the RFC as a whole, any secondary votes should be just details - mostly about "taste" so to speak and anyone voting yes on the primary vote should be happy to accept any outcome of any secondary vote. If that's not the case, the RFC smells... Cheers, Jakob