Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73368 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74568 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2014 09:37:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Mar 2014 09:37:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@schlueters.de; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@schlueters.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 217.114.215.10 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@schlueters.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.215.10 mail.experimentalworks.net Received: from [217.114.215.10] ([217.114.215.10:48589] helo=mail.experimentalworks.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id AA/61-63501-1ECFF235 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 04:37:38 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.31] (ppp-188-174-53-226.dynamic.mnet-online.de [188.174.53.226]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: johannes@schlueters.de) by mail.experimentalworks.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB4DA4302B; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:38:21 +0100 (CET) To: "Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa" Cc: 'internals' In-Reply-To: <532FF7B9.5040700@hoa-project.net> References: <532FF7B9.5040700@hoa-project.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:37:07 +0100 Message-ID: <1395653827.9365.9.camel@guybrush> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP Specification From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=) On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 10:15 +0100, Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa wrote: > * the historical interpreter [1], How is that historic? It is the prime standard with most active contributors etc. > Finally, I think that internal@ is responsible to start such a > standardization process because this group has made the historical > interpreter. It is building the reference implementation. If other implementations add new features they can and they can propose it for inclusion in the reference implementation by which it becomes part of the language definition. While old parts of the implementation are only documented in code and reference documentation form the RFC process provides more architectural of new features. johannes