Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128598
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_6677FEDD-99EC-42F4-A93B-589588B1FFC6"
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.700.81\))
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Reference of discussion in RFCs
Message-ID: <30FD734F-2ED4-4D48-823A-3E4E0F265D38@nicksdot.dev>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 17:28:57 +0700
To: internals@lists.php.net
From: php@nicksdot.dev (Nick)


--Apple-Mail=_6677FEDD-99EC-42F4-A93B-589588B1FFC6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Hey there!

When I try to look into the discussions of older RFCs to find out why =
they ended up the way they did, it=E2=80=99s not easy. You hardly can =
find them. This is because they are often not referenced in the RFC =
itself.

Going forward, would it make sense to make it mandatory to reference =
'[Discussion]' and '[Vote]' in the RFC text itself?

Cheers
Nick=

--Apple-Mail=_6677FEDD-99EC-42F4-A93B-589588B1FFC6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Hey =
there!<div><br></div><div><div>When I try to look into the discussions =
of older RFCs to find out why they ended up the way they did, it=E2=80=99s=
 not easy. You hardly can find them. This is because they are often not =
referenced in the RFC itself.</div><div><br></div><div>Going forward, =
would it make sense to make it mandatory to reference '[Discussion]' and =
'[Vote]' in the RFC text =
itself?</div></div><div><br></div><div><b>Cheers</b></div><div>Nick</div><=
/body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_6677FEDD-99EC-42F4-A93B-589588B1FFC6--