Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114755 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 73660 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2021 07:27:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 7 Jun 2021 07:27:02 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67321804D8 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 00:41:29 -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-lj1-f171.google.com (mail-lj1-f171.google.com [209.85.208.171]) (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, 7 Jun 2021 00:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f171.google.com with SMTP id bn21so20900785ljb.1 for ; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 00:41:29 -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=AmU3lIchS2odmF5oe1z5mTybIq1sjNdT4nba20tPrTs=; b=bkDTKLUZA0wafN0ivuu2TwyVgcrFLVsZjw28D/oQn5lPryAtjqE/iD1aLTXeR8B7N/ YXnBaDkW97bLqz/xM1eguiWH+KooAPnCeZqETVz+IcWkFIngj8lDXYK8ix+YTtF7pybi M2MeUACQX2VtY+lFSHbwwEKLTSqo8aFDwHWxUAS9fb6m7LJdu3r8wB/fHl1UyiwsoVoS pV2tIUADrMBvPFXBxlE7Q1yjrVCX1qX3ID7pd2+HSSJIRw36ohxwiL+H/dn1+KCA0/g2 gLcLTAldByTBDyZWylf1EM5dB4QozQkyCkQpdeB0KHAUhMB07TSmVjITXivvGUnFQuBw ijzA== 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=AmU3lIchS2odmF5oe1z5mTybIq1sjNdT4nba20tPrTs=; b=O3Z5iu2vwC0a9lFDPWS+7xfT2eYlsKUhknevLx2Y6JsVmoSgYXBvr7fWJCB9ZeS/Dp 9O0dkkM5onz9wz5LF/NQylR6IFXUjmi4xW+lakIoXbp50HPrUL29AztwZB9s1BxcLDH+ QVnB5aqb5c5Ua6E2tsIpLmqjXfn6OUQwcz8u9S+sNolfElKrWreNgX/CcR+XrJVmlDV2 onp4Y6U4fkpTesZMw0qGvkUaimfSIX5n9x/4VWBAhYSG534hK/J4DJ4H/t3gDgsOWZKX kNcagYR4x6d+v+nYpod4MrD6HgMHLTnMuZEsv9ocUpcnrUmpapn1NRur1kqjPXAsc3mW 2wlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530PEqoD4pwcWoyplnxKOyukoEscg2YzACh8o+BIOlbtrhzOLvV1 ibYtFGaxdwAQG2+WQqSeuVheidit+A5k28jgY+Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx6/ukCIngH4mRqoXpxwsKz9WnvhDxA9shtfkFuHlWMLyHyxO2nlERt1RALPx4foCBzDxbxNkKo+AcZa4CCYhg= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:2285:: with SMTP id i127mr14283729lji.272.1623051686196; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 00:41:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:41:10 +0200 Message-ID: To: Ayesh Karunaratne Cc: Ben Morss , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000353b1b05c4282b31" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Propagating AVIF support from libgd into PHP's bundled gd From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --000000000000353b1b05c4282b31 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 11:09 PM Ayesh Karunaratne wrote: > Hi Ben, > Thank you for opening this PR and the discussion. With the wide > availability of AVIF/AV1 support in browsers, I think this will fit > nicely. > Yes, this looks like a reasonable addition. Effectively this is just a sync with upstream libgd, and the exposed API follows existing conventions. > We have the Namespaces in Bundled Extensions RFC > (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions) passed, so > perhaps, the new functions are probably better in the `Gd` namespace? > This would mean the new functions would be `\Gd\imagecreatefromavif` > and `\Gd\imageavif`. They are inconsistent with the existing functions > of course, but I thought to mention it because it's a recent proposal > and I don't think we added new functions after that RFC. Some examples > are recently renamed PHP classes in IMAP, Pgsql, LDAP, and FTP > extensions to follow this new proposal.> > See https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions#existing_non-namespaces_symbols_and_consistency : > When adding new symbols to existing extensions, it is more important to be consistent with existing symbols than to follow the namespacing guidelines. Unless we introduce namespaced aliases for the gd extension first, these functions should not be namespaced either. As Mark pointed out, in the case of GD it might make more sense to move to an OO API rather than a new set of namespaced functions. In any case, I don't think this is the place to discuss this. Regards, Nikita --000000000000353b1b05c4282b31--