Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95334 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 1874 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2016 07:57:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Aug 2016 07:57:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.47 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.218.47 mail-oi0-f47.google.com Received: from [209.85.218.47] ([209.85.218.47:33487] helo=mail-oi0-f47.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0A/63-03566-87D08B75 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 03:57:45 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f47.google.com with SMTP id c15so92413694oig.0 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 00:57:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+MIa9hpHO7cA2zFrd+U++gXsPVXFXvjsfcOhfStniII=; b=mFA6OUVbVg2bbaR7i1Uba88xaIY/X/PLKMggMTwDru6DVE58UcZ1VmowQCyY54xtck NuuRw9jytcyof5vP54fvXDR/4rPYjuNK0gHHrLVkWYTK6Ij39xY96t9wdX9lSRzW/k2j owVZ2hFqroW2idrZFnUWZhyb11kV9VgQ3Cxvo6zBjHPJYesuYw9ZHE4MbiVrPf46FRsx MnBveos7781MwuEGDS0iQ/cGMif5u/jCkiU1p+aURbIsulcBd9TsrXebAw+fkBdnxkIK 4Gvdy+kIz1i4QzAJpAeH86ZZxK9ieduVJb7RldMF8buWNjeLiWcYBxbkQZ0EbV1Nj9sZ ey3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+MIa9hpHO7cA2zFrd+U++gXsPVXFXvjsfcOhfStniII=; b=iwA/+oPajG/XOoVUP3xp6gtjbkfXp5JRQhc/ynThxNbJg+PxiewsaOPA0lNtqqPHHm BfM1OSn5ZiuTTy0x2D958LOV4EL11jZaE4tt76upCM1yq7UlmnFQYwuT+WZYGjWcp+gH NRzHE0PwpiBhkY1+tdynVfKX1N8v+f6kqXAzH1T+A+58e/IpaU3WmNo31GzyrsjJgjZu S+Egi4CVuIsX3qZg+2OVtkxMbamcZg42EGwAadNvm4wCgPZHhtYaqsLliokKBQwJzXMF uE9vT/g/rtPp/zypurZgCpXDNXMcITu4KOKXcZ8pfsX82hMfpY8H4RbjrVuTWyMB1ZTd ev7A== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousKTbx0b5Q8Tlbu6VOR1TgpdbdnphlpTy5BF+O86yIII2eGXr7Yd7t3PytU/iXhs9WCqhFFfZSnY4RfIg== X-Received: by 10.157.20.173 with SMTP id d42mr7752385ote.104.1471679861223; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 00:57:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.53.135 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 00:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.53.135 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 00:57:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 14:57:38 +0700 Message-ID: To: Yasuo Ohgaki Cc: Dan Ackroyd , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e26cc59f793053a7c2b11 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] Add validation functions to filter module From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) --001a113e26cc59f793053a7c2b11 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Aug 17, 2016 12:20 PM, "Yasuo Ohgaki" wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > I understood about RFC process. > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > > Additionally, you seem to completely have ignored this: > > > > Dan Ackroyd wrote: > >> And I strongly object to the idea of stopping and starting voting on RFCS. Please leave the vote open and if it fails take some time to think about the feedback. > > > > It would benefit everyone if you stopped responding immediately and > > instead took time to actually think about what people have been > > saying. This RFC isn't going to be in PHP 7.1, so it is fine to wait 3 > > months to present a new version of the RFC. > > It seems I've marked "already read" by mistake. > Thank you for reminding. > I got that you prefer userland implementation. > > I'm planning to propose "Filter module deprecation" when this RFC > is declined, because current validation filter is not good enough to > do the job and makes situation worse than better... If deprecation > RFC is declined also, then I might try to improve this RFC again. I already can say I will vote no for that one. I use filter a lot and it fits my needs quite well. I would prefer better api like method->get... But what we have already allows me to do quick&eazy filtering. --001a113e26cc59f793053a7c2b11--