Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72229 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 93022 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2014 01:24:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Feb 2014 01:24:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.99 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.99 smtp99.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.99] ([108.166.43.99:54367] helo=smtp99.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 14/91-12415-8B291F25 for ; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 20:24:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 196CF1B0382; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:24:06 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id CA73D1B0364; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:24:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52F192B6.7010707@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 17:24:06 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yasuo Ohgaki , "internals@lists.php.net" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] RFC: Multibyte Char Handling From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > This is the last notice before reopen vote. > Please comment if there is. > Since the RFC has changed, users who vote already need > to vote again. One note: PHP 5.3 is now only for critical security issues. This is not a critical security issue, it is an API improvement, so I doubt it can get into 5.3. 5.4 would be OK though if accepted. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227