Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25551
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 64.233.166.183 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: good
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=googlemail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=AS3GRjpX9rJHiNV9KBzQO79fT2xp6xxrT382b0mNPulfY7SHh4YqGsd72QgCmmZPXfoxKttDyFOALvpvDGeZ5npySeUyYSZWkr4ZcrG/l6kAcHjTR0WRF04qiXAl/jqZixpurDbyk0W0rCxf+UjNAxQnNK6mSgjCpp2xepDVOIQ=
Message-ID: <10845a340609061158m49545e5cg63f19bd40cea7c1e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 19:58:47 +0100
Reply-To: RQuadling@GoogleMail.com
To: "M. Sokolewicz" <tularis@php.net>
Cc: "Ilia Alshanetsky" <ilia@prohost.org>, 
	"Andrei Zmievski" <andrei@gravitonic.com>, 
	"PHP Internals" <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	"Dmitry Stogov" <dmitry@zend.com>
In-Reply-To: <44FF1336.1070007@php.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_15344_3272696.1157569127443"
References: <2b9a524b62303d2b7c3f5e20a7b86537@gravitonic.com>
	 <F005768A-1424-49D0-A3AA-B33F8330309D@prohost.org>
	 <44FF1336.1070007@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: unicode.semantics: runtime or not?
From: rquadling@googlemail.com ("Richard Quadling")

------=_Part_15344_3272696.1157569127443
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 06/09/06, M. Sokolewicz <tularis@php.net> wrote:
>
> My personal opinion, as humble as it may be, is that it's pure bullshit
> to even give the chance of disabling it. WHY in hell's name would you
> want to give hoster's the choice? I can see a part of the hosts
> disabling it to "give an easy transition" while another part of the
> hosts enable it to "give the new features a chance". If Unicode support
> it supposed to be such a big part of the while PHP6 release then why do
> you give the option of disabling it? you're breaking away part of the
> MAIN reason why people would want to upgrade in the first place.
>
> Just imagine what a mess it would be if you had given the choice of
> "disabling" the OOP support in PHP5. Be very very very glag you didn't
> do that, and as such I'd suggest not doing something equally drastic in
> PHP6.
>

I agree on this. From my reading of some the issues around unicode you are
far better off simply saying PHP6 is unicode only. A lot of scripts that use
register_globals and any number of deprecated features are simply not going
to work with PHP6 anyway.

There is another side to this. For those developers who are NOT unicode
aware they will be wondering what all the fuss is about. They are probably
the same developers who wonder why anyone would want discrete
setters/getters in PHPs OOP. I think it is these people who will have the
biggest headache.

Many ISPs install CPanel or Plesk or whatever and never configure things
anyway.

Actively promoting ISPs capable of taking PHP6 and running with it would be
a nice way to show/prove the value of PHP6.

What would be far more useful would be a very clear set of documentation
regarding the steps needed to take to move a PHP based application forward
into the Unicode'd world.

Regards,

Richard Quadling.
-- 
-----
Richard Quadling
Zend Certified Engineer :
http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&amp;r=213474731
"Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"

------=_Part_15344_3272696.1157569127443--