removing some cruft

Yeah, I was wondering why the magical logo thing was implemented like that.
Just use the href= "data:image/png;base64,..." scheme instead if you really
need a logo there. Combine that with smaller size and heavy jpeg compression
and it shouldn't make the HTML /that/ bloated.

Hannes

If you really need such content in phpinfo() you could simply embed the
picture in HTML using the data: scheme.

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 06:05, Kalle Sommer Nielsen kalle@php.net
wrote:

expose_php = Off?

I think what he and others mean is that they want the option to
leave the logo, credits, et cetera, completely out of the build at
compile time.

We also have other possibilities here (this is not a proposal, but rather,
a list of options/ideas to ponder):

0. Do nothing

1. Disable expose_php within the distributed php.ini-* files

Trivial, but changing [at least] php.ini-production is a real possibility.

2. Disable expose_php by default within PHP

We could do this too. Default === when no php.ini file is used.

3. Remove the specific PHP version from the exposed PHP header

There are security concerns although I'm not sure what implications (BC?)
or real help this would offer. For example, version information can be
deciphered by other means (e.g., logos and credits change over time) but
maybe it's a help because, for example, displaying phpinfo() requires direct
user action. See also #4.

4. Change its behavior and usage

For example, phpinfo() relies upon expose_php for both the logo and credits
information to be displayed. However, the phpinfo() output clearly exposes
PHP (along with the version) regardless of the expose_php setting so we
could instead embed the logo into phpinfo(), and display credits as per
phpcredits(), instead of relying upon expose_php for this as done currently.
In other words, expose_php could be off yet phpinfo() behavior would remain
close to the same with either a little extra markup, or appended credits
near the license.

But this raises the question: Why do we have magical logo and credit guids?

5. And a performance review

People are concerned with performance issues (e.g., images loaded into
memory) although I'm not sure what real performance is lost (some have made
guesses). Is there a real issue with performance here? How does it compare
with, let's say, loading an additional extension? If so, how can it be
helped?

Regards,
Philip