Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59975
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: <CAKOpQSzK2vi4YevNFP91o6rOb9b8b8hSsaW=3ZwQOXB_3c3w3g@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>
	<CAKOpQSzK2vi4YevNFP91o6rOb9b8b8hSsaW=3ZwQOXB_3c3w3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:43:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSz6SGcQU-h335iqXED0+uaYyJmMYACKigH6Lg+4jWdm-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043be06834063804bdc0456e
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Go for votes for the open tag-less PHP files
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d043be06834063804bdc0456e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

err it might be 1 week, not 2.  Either way, it's definitely too soon for
mine to be voted on.

--Kris


On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>

--f46d043be06834063804bdc0456e--