Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64320 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 54548 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2012 09:36:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Dec 2012 09:36:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 173.203.6.155 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 173.203.6.155 smtp155.ord.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [173.203.6.155] ([173.203.6.155:42827] helo=smtp155.ord.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 50/A3-27715-797EEC05 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:36:24 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp12.relay.ord1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id CFC352E0075; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:36:20 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp12.relay.ord1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 5C4A92E0074; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:36:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <50CEE792.5020707@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:36:18 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Craig CC: PHP internals References: <50CDDA20.8090400@lsces.co.uk> <50CE252D.5060305@lsces.co.uk> <50CE2ECB.5030804@lsces.co.uk> <50CE3197.90403@lerdorf.com> <50CE572C.50305@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Core liason for PHP FIG From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Steering things back to the original topic, my objections to collaboration > with FIG seem to be pretty much centered around their edictal approach to > userland style guidelines and how our involvement could be construed as an > endorsement of said style. If they would agree to make some modifications > to this approach, I'd probably be able to withdraw my objection entirely. Any standards group would have "edictal" approach. That's the point of standard - it prescribes a way of doing something. You may follow it or not, but if it doesn't do that it's not a standard. Now, I do not know if such standards will be successful in PHP world. But I think it's a good idea to try and see if people adopt it. Probably some things should have some standards - even if just to describe some common things - it's much easier to say "we follow standard X" than to have 10-page description of the coding style and trying to figure out if it's the same as another 10-page description or not. As for having php.net representative, I'm not sure if it is needed since I'm not sure what is the purpose of it. If it's just "having a vote", I don't think it makes a lot of sense - php.net is not a PHP framework and does not represent any frameworks, and is to serve any of them and all of them and all non-framework developers equally. If it's to provide some expertise or answers to core/internals question, this can be done by anybody on the list without designating any special person. If it would serve some other purpose, I think additional explanation is needed. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227