Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127314
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 22:02:37 +0000
To: "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones@pmjones.io>
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=A1t=C3=A9_Kocsis?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>, PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Add WHATWG compliant URL parsing API
Message-ID: <OCnCfRLcbBnZtVBVAiJoCUVtbw8znOkgpULTYbtzcyquBwpbd2aWyrZMfkOegRVNEScB9sy6a_PrwOFg6cJKHVWsjOX66bH7ocmdl7OsfTY=@gpb.moe>
In-Reply-To: <E34BD802-5B71-4D42-91AC-53CCAEFF92DC@pmjones.io>
References: <CAH5C8xUb1O20ZDrOQNC=ckFxHUUWSK7sw_njQQzFBd0qgQqoww@mail.gmail.com> <CAH5C8xVquAMhQyrmnsBhnHtVrTpvC1+iW=pGf7EM0sHAGuAXeA@mail.gmail.com> <E34BD802-5B71-4D42-91AC-53CCAEFF92DC@pmjones.io>
Feedback-ID: 96993444:user:proton
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internals@gpb.moe ("Gina P. Banyard")

On Wednesday, 7 May 2025 at 20:20, Paul M. Jones <pmjones@pmjones.io> wrote=
:

> Hi Mat=C3=A9 and all,
>=20
> > On May 5, 2025, at 16:36, M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis kocsismate90@gmail.com =
wrote:
> >=20
> > Hello Internals,
> >=20
> > After more than a hundred emails refining even the tiniest details, we =
have reached a point where I'd like to call for a vote.
> > I know that the new API still doesn't support many use-cases, it still =
has missing pieces, but now it includes a cohesive set
> > of functionality that could be a very useful basic building block for m=
ost people.
> >=20
> > That said, I don't intend to change anything about the RFC anymore, unl=
ess there's still some factual error in it. There are a lot of
> > possibilities how such a large API can look like, and this RFC approach=
es the problem the way it is currently described,
> > and not in any other way.
> >=20
> > So unless some very serious issues arise, I'm going to start the vote o=
n 8th May, possibly in the morning (according to UTC).
>=20
>=20
> I am on record as wanting very much to see some decent web-centric object=
s in core PHP (Request, Response, Uri/Url, etc).
>=20
> To my chagrin, despite the fact that its goals are laudable, I do not thi=
nk this RFC is in a ready state to provide such objects.
> [...]
>=20
> -- pmj

Considering that this RFC was in discussion for over 10 months,
and you only started providing input 2 months ago after there have already =
been serious alterations to it _twice_.
I am not sure your "rant" is something that is at all productive.

You are free to vote against it, but stalling the work someone has committe=
d just because you don't think it is ready is not how any of this works.
Looking from the sidelines, you seem to have the opinion that we should be =
standardizing existing userland design.
This is not what you want, because if you do this you get POSIX, and POSIX =
is notoriously inconsistent and kinda bad.
And maybe this is what FIG did, which whatever, but core is not FIG nor use=
rland.

So let's go through your points:

> - is too broad in scope;

An RFC author is allowed to choose whatever scope they want.

> - acknowledges it is incomplete, with work left undone;

Using multiple RFCs to provide incremental improvements to the language is =
a standard thing we do.
Therefore, this point is moot.

> - admits to standards non-compliance; and,

Non-compliance with what?
WHATWG which is a living standard?
Not having one component of the WHATWG spec?
The same way, the new 8.4 DOM classes don't implement the whole living DOM =
spec?

> - has an uncertain API.

Frankly, 90% of the recent uncertainty has seemingly come from you trying t=
o "rework" the RFC to your own taste.
If you think this should first be an extension or a userland package then f=
eel free to do it, regardless of the result of this vote.
Considering that one of the main maintainers of an actual popular userland =
URI library has actively been participating in the discussions since the be=
ginning and help shape this RFC,
makes me believe this is very much ready to vote, compared to the opinion o=
f someone that is trying to chime in last minute.

Sincerely,

Gina P. Banyard