Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99992 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 52748 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2017 09:04:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Jul 2017 09:04:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk designates 185.153.204.204 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 185.153.204.204 mail4.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [185.153.204.204] ([185.153.204.204:33163] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 6F/A2-02884-B83C1795 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 05:04:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 8101 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jul 2017 09:04:08 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 8095, pid: 8098, t: 0.0420s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.7?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 21 Jul 2017 09:04:08 -0000 To: PHP internals References: <4B.B1.02884.CAFB1795@pb1.pair.com> Message-ID: <6677f136-657b-52cd-f8ac-068840013d51@lsces.co.uk> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:04:08 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4B.B1.02884.CAFB1795@pb1.pair.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] php.net website From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 21/07/17 09:47, Tony Marston wrote: > Why on earth should you need to use HTTPS for a website that does not > deal with personal information? Nothing on that website can possibly be > classed as "sensitive" so what would be the point? That applies to many of the websites I support yet the likes of Google and Bing now 'downrate' sites that don't have https and browsers complain about 'insecure' sites. Add the problems created when you add a private https area to a 'public' domain name and things get even messier. That some people even here insist that HTTP should be killed off seems not to have been thought through at all? On the website front, the problem I see is that while the MANUAL is a static site, adding things like the wiki, bug system, pecl/pear management, and other dynamic areas and allowing a decent CLEAN cross content search is what I see as being needed. Add managed translations then while a single static english copy of the main stuff is easy to distribute, and dynamic set of content WOULD be easier going forward. Except there would never be any agreement on how THAT would be managed and on which database engine :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk