Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111570 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 21294 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2020 09:15:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 17 Aug 2020 09:15:25 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0591804DA for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:16:17 -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-il1-f177.google.com (mail-il1-f177.google.com [209.85.166.177]) (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 ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-f177.google.com with SMTP id t4so13770457iln.1 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:16:17 -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=swTzJuXnWfc5hKOgTSPZhIz7/OaVxaW5BVEX79pUhHs=; b=Nhlfxv0cCLsrDQ1tv8TMjba98SKyzxWpzrp//fEM/XN+ngrVdeZCyZuRU6+Jzfx5Wb uHOEDTdeOPLwMAm+4cA2NToSdJCZoXAvG6NF/X0i3dFcqTYIVhgk5Zn7JKNQvYQnVpwv TsYvFuldw+IKlZXTutJ3SwtR9JIUwtfYFtkTVN6eSZ71nKcR8c7iygB5zzL5w6h6JnG9 +YWPRoYy4ZTV/iFgx1uqC9Eps6bZXl8GVmHhgelAZogUiTbRyjJthaCE7ZcexPp5vj2N DVLZ0RO204F7fUflQ4M+vOb3QQIxYSzKTMM6sA4TIfTrqWgKyEtQ9Hmm8CRy7CDbBfaG XTbw== 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=swTzJuXnWfc5hKOgTSPZhIz7/OaVxaW5BVEX79pUhHs=; b=AEKnyiIY1crWaxu2hpXa/MMC3B30JbIKPMFMhIR/nydLsMc9zViiGuw9d7wk7MegWH +rPOEeVv0076XTX9NxdRVTkVrJ6B1feHgtyX7Ke+6wV7O+83z5rWa+GRxv3YNenro8Ga /zXaBUv5mz5ZGgU2aXdsLn3KqZYnHTk4ivmW2TCD/dOKn0F40t9NdOkdO7z3iqIatg9t 6yP9mdeTdxwS6/7bTieMm8DZlpHa5sYPvhqwxNXkst9dIBXuoZAYw0KOowKxAjYqssYx +PEeWKDn8/D6kGKfQEMQpR8+OKjILDimLIx+LZu8hTs9ui8Hn2rAqr3DdlSDS+b8lRwE hf5g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532e+5RwJAyPOMCOLG8Q4IyFKa5Azv82ZJbFJtI4lAH1PqR+HxiT MZVhuw47vbe7lTfCht6nkQipFUj8r+KzXg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSF7Z41StDH7z72ElsgD7UTzSQT4786cPa84SMBicb5G7UqfjmUhL+1vMJTCRtsY7utQy2lA== X-Received: by 2002:a92:8418:: with SMTP id l24mr13014618ild.201.1597652175851; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-f41.google.com (mail-io1-f41.google.com. [209.85.166.41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d3sm9026067ils.25.2020.08.17.01.16.14 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-f41.google.com with SMTP id v6so16683396iow.11 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:16:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a6b:5a04:: with SMTP id o4mr11524414iob.171.1597652174643; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:16:14 -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: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 09:15:38 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Jakob Givoni Cc: Benjamin Eberlei , Benjamin Morel , =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGFlbCBWb8WZw63FoWVrIC0gxIxWVVQgRkVM?= , PHP Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000058433505ad0e6256" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: phpmailinglists@gmail.com (Peter Bowyer) --00000000000058433505ad0e6256 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" (Resending, as my @php.net email address never makes it to the list) On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 07:42, Jakob Givoni wrote: > 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. > Having read the updated (and now very good) RFC, I second this suggestion. It feels like we've spent 2 weeks talking at cross purposes, when a clear wording of attribute syntax vs attribute delimiter syntax would have short-circuited much of this discussion. > 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). > +1. Peter --00000000000058433505ad0e6256--