Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77200 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 61697 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2014 20:41:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Sep 2014 20:41:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.216 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.216 imap10-3.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.216] ([192.64.116.216:51416] helo=imap10-3.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E0/21-55139-E7DF5145 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:41:35 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 741BC2400D6 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:41:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap10.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap10.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id rfvEsILEhDjm for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:41:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oa-res-27-90.wireless.abdn.ac.uk (oa-res-27-90.wireless.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.27.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE3BE2400D1 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 21:41:27 +0100 To: PHP Developers Mailing List Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Subject: Language specification patches in RFCs From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) Good evening, Given PHP now has a (admittedly work-in-progress) language = specification, would it be reasonable to make an RFC to amend the = current rules, such that RFCs that change the language must include a = patch to the specification? Thanks! -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/