Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83257 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 67232 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2015 02:14:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Feb 2015 02:14:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:35678] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 48/50-65128-C6896E45 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:14:09 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB8C4B0150; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 03:13:59 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: =?utf-8?Q?'P=C3=A1draic_Brady'?= Cc: "'Anthony Ferrara'" , "'Stas Malyshev'" , "'Lester Caine'" , "'PHP Internals'" References: <04c701d04c99$ab0da5d0$0128f170$@php.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 03:13:57 +0100 Message-ID: <04cc01d04cb2$e25511e0$a6ff35a0$@php.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHZm35ye3NFGwIiX+/cnKgzWZqQygMQ3uOUAXUy2e8C5+2pSgNLsNkynJBR96A= Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150219-1, 19/02/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations v0.5) From: francois@php.net (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=) > De : P=C3=A1draic Brady [mailto:padraic.brady@gmail.com] > > As I understand it, Andrea left her RFC free to be reused, reopened > and derived without any specific limitation. It would therefore appear > that it would be possible for there to be 100 derived RFCs all owned > by different people, i.e. nobody has an exclusive right to either the > RFC text or the concept of scalar typehints insofar as I understand > it. You're right. The process of taking over an RFC in this case is not = defined. Even if Andrea explicitly authorized anyone to derive anything = from her work, I thought it was lack of respect for her work to take = control and switch to another direction. That's why, while I'm not = totally in sync with Anthony's proposal, I think he is acting the right = way regarding Andrea's work. And yes, apparently, you could have 100 RFCs derived from the same one = and published by different people. I also guessed it was forbidden, at = least by common sense, but it is possible. I would happily support more rules for such cases. > As I believe Sara noted before, she will work with either of the RFCs > (yours or Anthony's) as it fits her own purposes, so it will boil down > to whichever RFCs gets published in the end. There's one up. I assume > yours will follow. That shall make two :). Not sure we compete. Main reason is that, while I sometimes believe in = (fair) competition, I am pretty sure one on such a hot subject would be = globally negative for the community. Anyway, we will publish work done = so far but, maybe, just for information. Anyway, nothing is decided and = I'm talking for myself only. Others may decide differently. I don't own = anything. Regards Fran=C3=A7ois