Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59974
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAORXhGKZL1rHpPxCsVY9kcpPcR1-L9BEmLkXqpE8rZwRUfgazw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEZPtU52Ayb6fnLSaZdQ+LHk1hEh3X1tJUO3NWUg3befgSAM1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSw+r5iapJoHhXUH9rJHndh8DUsPJ2TQnt3QLb7FXF1tLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7z7Jf+nSDVFoL7Xdz4je6dSWFgh6HAcNUQuveDYf=LTA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhGKZL1rHpPxCsVY9kcpPcR1-L9BEmLkXqpE8rZwRUfgazw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:42:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSzK2vi4YevNFP91o6rOb9b8b8hSsaW=3ZwQOXB_3c3w3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec517ab022fce3404bdc042bf
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Go for votes for the open tag-less PHP files
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--bcaec517ab022fce3404bdc042bf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote:

> I don't think a consensus on the following points is likely to emerge
> without voting on them individually. I propose carrying out a vote
> with up to three questions to be answered depending on your response
> to each. We could then proceed to discuss the (relatively boring but
> essential) details of keywords and extensions, if any, and create a
> final RFC.
>
> Hopefully all parties can agree to be bound by the results of a vote
> on these three questions and work together to create a final RFC that
> abides by the result or let the matter drop.
>
> Let's briefly discuss whether these questions truly represent the
> major differences between the three RFCs (not the merits of those
> positions please) and then, I hope, carry out a vote on them so we can
> move on.
>
> The Questions:
>
> 1. Whether a "pure code" mode in which <?php is not required at the
> top of a file, and the <?php and ?> tags are not permitted at all in
> such a file:
>
> * Has merit and should be pursued (option 1a), or
> * Should be dropped entirely (option 1b).
>
> If your vote is for option 1a, please respond to the following
> additional question:
>
> 2. Whether "pure code" mode should be:
>
> * Toggled globally by a php.ini option such that <?php and ?> tags are
> completely forbidden when this mode is active (option 2a), or
> * Switched on by keywords and SAPI options that allow the sysadmin and
> developer to make the choice at runtime, with the ability to make that
> choice differently for different files or invocations, so that a mix
> of "pure code" files and files that forbid <?php and ?> can exist
> (option 2b).
>
> 3. If your vote is for option 2b, please respond to the following
> additional question:
>
> Whether "pure code" mode should:
>
> * Forbid requiring a non-pure file from a pure file (option 3a), or
> * Permit requiring non-pure files from pure files (option 3b).
>

Question 3 may not be necessary given a possible new parallel approach
being discussed.  Please refer to my RFCs thread for details and to weigh
in on that.


>
> I believe Kris Craig and Yasuo Ohgaki will find that these questions
> accurately sum up our really significant unreconciled differences
> (and, with the inclusion of question 1, the position of those who
> don't want the feature at all).
>
> These three questions deliberately don't address what the keywords or
> file extensions or other mechanisms are called exactly, because I
> believe those issues to be fairly simple to agree upon once we have
> decided the basics.
>

Overall, I like the idea, but I think it's premature.  For my part, I still
need more time to brainstorm and discuss.  Keep in mind that my RFC was
only drafted a few days ago and the RFC process requires a *minimum* of 2
weeks before a vote can be held.  I'd prefer to adhere to that rule for the
time being.  I see no benefit in rushing things.  I ask that everybody come
back to the table and spend some more time trying to establish where we
share common ground.  I can't support a vote, at least on my RFC, at this
time.



>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>  Perhaps a new list for RFC-specific discussions?  =)
> >
> > We don't need yet a new list. Sit down together and get over your
> > differences and create the RFC or more if you can't get over your
> > differences.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Pierre
> >
> > @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tom Boutell
> P'unk Avenue
> 215 755 1330
> punkave.com
> window.punkave.com
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--bcaec517ab022fce3404bdc042bf--