Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:19493 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 55517 invoked by uid 1010); 7 Oct 2005 21:41:33 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 55502 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2005 21:41:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Oct 2005 21:41:33 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 204.11.219.139 lerdorf.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([204.11.219.139:52969] helo=colo.lerdorf.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id CD/46-54476-C8BE6434 for ; Fri, 07 Oct 2005 17:41:33 -0400 Received: from [192.168.10.100] (dsl-80-42-4-191.access.as9105.com [80.42.4.191]) (authenticated bits=0) by colo.lerdorf.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-2) with ESMTP id j97LfQVu022046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:41:28 -0700 Message-ID: <4346EB85.4020509@lerdorf.com> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 22:41:25 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ilia Alshanetsky CC: George Schlossnagle , Derick Rethans , PHP Developers Mailing List References: <99dd4f75f4ceebfe1c980cf439e97416@gravitonic.com> <4346E00A.8020504@prohost.org> <4346E0C5.3090001@lerdorf.com> <4346EABE.6000706@prohost.org> In-Reply-To: <4346EABE.6000706@prohost.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Unicode Implementation From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > George Schlossnagle wrote: > >>>What is wrong with PHP 5.1? People don't *have* to upgrade to the >>>unicode enabled PHP if they don't want to. And it would probably be >>>"nice" to have that mode for some users, but should that be over our own >>>back with multiple implementations of everything? >> >> >>Are you suggesting that people who don't want unicode should stick with >>5.1 for perpetuity? > > > Assuming that 5.1 would be actively maintained and not just for bug > fixes, I'd say that is a viable approach. There are plenty of sites that > have no use for Unicode as nice as it may be, and much rather retain > performance over useless (for them) functionality. So, you are saying that something like the namespace patch would be added between 5.1.2 and 5.1.3, for example? That doesn't make much sense to me. -Rasmus