Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81368 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47184 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2015 10:52:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Jan 2015 10:52:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@beccati.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@beccati.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain beccati.com designates 176.9.114.167 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@beccati.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 176.9.114.167 spritz.beccati.com Received: from [176.9.114.167] ([176.9.114.167:45482] helo=mail.beccati.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id EC/D6-09212-2E01AC45 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 05:52:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 1687 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2015 10:52:14 -0000 Received: from home.beccati.com (HELO ?192.168.1.202?) (88.149.176.119) by mail.beccati.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2015 10:52:14 -0000 Message-ID: <54CA10D0.3030003@beccati.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:52:00 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrey Andreev CC: Michael Wallner , PHP Internals References: <54C8D36E.7010803@php.net> <54C9338A.7020202@beccati.com> <54C9363D.6090102@php.net> <54C94A9D.8000904@beccati.com> <54C9E5CC.8010607@beccati.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http From: php@beccati.com (Matteo Beccati) Hi Andrey, On 29/01/2015 10:41, Andrey Andreev wrote: > It's not about whether we like the FIG's direction or what "PSR" > stands for (which doesn't make sense btw) - that is indeed OT. > > My message was different: the PHP RFC process can't get blocked > because of a third-party group, especially if your reasoning for that > is to follow "standards" which aren't standards at all. > > Anyway, hopefully there will be more details on this RFC once voting > is restarted so we don't have to have such silly arguments. I'm not sure why you're turning this into a crusade against FIG and PSRs. Your argument is valid, but I'm afraid that's the message you conveyed much louder than the actual argument itself. I didn't ask to block the RFC. I simply voted "no" to the RFC and explained why I did that on the list, as it's expected from anyone who does. The vote has since been cancelled. The next time it is opened, I would love to read in the RFC why this implementation is better than any userland attempt at it, be it PSR-7 or not. Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/