Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:19504 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 93876 invoked by uid 1010); 7 Oct 2005 23:51:18 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 93861 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2005 23:51:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Oct 2005 23:51:18 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 195.197.172.116 gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([195.197.172.116:39055] helo=gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id C0/69-54476-6F907434 for ; Fri, 07 Oct 2005 19:51:18 -0400 Received: from nest.netphobia.fi (YZDCXXXI.dsl.saunalahti.fi [85.76.35.232]) by gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F27FD2ED4; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 02:51:12 +0300 (EEST) Received: from nest.netphobia.fi (nest.netphobia.fi [127.0.0.1]) by nest.netphobia.fi (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j97NpFWW001825; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 02:51:15 +0300 Received: from localhost (jani@localhost) by nest.netphobia.fi (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id j97NpFjQ001822; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 02:51:15 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: nest.netphobia.fi: jani owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 02:51:15 +0300 (EEST) Reply-To: Jani Taskinen To: Ilia Alshanetsky cc: PHP Developers Mailing List In-Reply-To: <4346EABE.6000706@prohost.org> Message-ID: References: <99dd4f75f4ceebfe1c980cf439e97416@gravitonic.com> <4346E00A.8020504@prohost.org> <4346E0C5.3090001@lerdorf.com> <4346EABE.6000706@prohost.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Unicode Implementation From: sniper@iki.fi (Jani Taskinen) On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, 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. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3..where was it said that 5.1 has to stop at 5.1 ? :) --Jani