Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:126208
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:41:03 +0000 (GMT)
To: Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com>
cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Consolidate Coding Standards Policy Document
In-Reply-To: <B483F33D-E0DD-45F5-A41B-497AADB5CA8B@benramsey.com>
Message-ID: <0d002b53-6aaa-5751-72d9-fee02808cd15@php.net>
References: <28123d01-c86d-bcbc-eefb-a364eefd64d2@php.net> <B483F33D-E0DD-45F5-A41B-497AADB5CA8B@benramsey.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-1627736461-1736793664=:65263"
From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323329-1627736461-1736793664=:65263
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024, Ben Ramsey wrote:

> > On Dec 23, 2024, at 19:06, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:
> >=20
> > =EF=BB=BFOn Sun, 22 Dec 2024, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> >=20
> >>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 11:39 Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:
> >>>=20
> >>> I would like to propose the "Consolidate Coding Standards Policy
> >>> Document" RFC, which follows up from the Policy Repository RFC[1]'s
> >>> future scope section.
> >>>=20
> >>> This proposal suggests adopting the changes to the Coding Standards
> >>> and Naming document, and to integrate the CODING_STANDARDS.md file
> >>> from the php-src repository:
> >>>=20
> >>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/consolidate-coding-standard-policy-document
> >>>=20
> >>> [1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/policy-repository
> >>=20
> >> Nitpick:
> >>=20
> >> It might be more correct to reference BCP 14[1] instead of RFC 2119
> >> (which is part of BCP 14).
> >>=20
> >> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14
> >=20
> > Either works really? I think that if I would feel inclined to update=20
> > it, wouldn't I just mention RFC 8174, as it updates 2119?
> >=20
> > Many (if not most) documents I have seen still reference to RFC 2119=20
> > though...
>=20
>=20
> The latest RFCs from the IETF standards track use language like this:
>=20
> > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",=20
> > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and=20
> > "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in=20
> > BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all=20
> > capitals, as shown here.
>=20
> See here for an example:=20
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9697.html#section-1.1

Thanks for that. I've updated the document, and also the RFC, to mention=20
BCP 14.

cheers,
Derick
--8323329-1627736461-1736793664=:65263--