Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25575 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 44030 invoked by uid 1010); 7 Sep 2006 16:48:30 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 44014 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2006 16:48:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Sep 2006 16:48:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=andrei@gravitonic.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=andrei@gravitonic.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain gravitonic.com from 204.11.219.139 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: andrei@gravitonic.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 204.11.219.139 lerdorf.com Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from [204.11.219.139] ([204.11.219.139:38158] helo=lerdorf.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 26/EB-50225-B5D40054 for ; Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:48:30 -0400 Received: from [66.228.175.145] (borndress-lm.corp.yahoo.com [66.228.175.145]) (authenticated bits=0) by lerdorf.com (8.13.7/8.13.7/Debian-1) with ESMTP id k87GmNg1014592; Thu, 7 Sep 2006 09:48:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1142355092.20060906230917@marcus-boerger.de> References: <2b9a524b62303d2b7c3f5e20a7b86537@gravitonic.com> <1142355092.20060906230917@marcus-boerger.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dmitry Stogov , PHP Internals Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 09:49:35 -0700 To: Marcus Boerger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: unicode.semantics: runtime or not? From: andrei@gravitonic.com (Andrei Zmievski) I tend to agree with this. But I guess not everyone does.. -Andrei On Sep 6, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Marcus Boerger wrote: > Hello Andrei, > > we have already a freaking complexapi to deal with and on the other > hand > we have fastcgisupport. What we should imo do is trying to drop > complexity > of our api and not increase it to an unhandable extreme and instead > promote > usage of fastcgi. My 2c. >