Bah sorry everyone, I just woke up and I'm still a little groggy lol. It is in fact 2 weeks.
--Kris On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > err it might be 1 week, not 2. Either way, it's definitely too soon for > mine to be voted on. > > --Kris > > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Tom Boutell <t...@punkave.com> wrote: >> >>> I don't think a consensus on the following points is likely to emerge >>> without voting on them individually. I propose carrying out a vote >>> with up to three questions to be answered depending on your response >>> to each. We could then proceed to discuss the (relatively boring but >>> essential) details of keywords and extensions, if any, and create a >>> final RFC. >>> >>> Hopefully all parties can agree to be bound by the results of a vote >>> on these three questions and work together to create a final RFC that >>> abides by the result or let the matter drop. >>> >>> Let's briefly discuss whether these questions truly represent the >>> major differences between the three RFCs (not the merits of those >>> positions please) and then, I hope, carry out a vote on them so we can >>> move on. >>> >>> The Questions: >>> >>> 1. Whether a "pure code" mode in which <?php is not required at the >>> top of a file, and the <?php and ?> tags are not permitted at all in >>> such a file: >>> >>> * Has merit and should be pursued (option 1a), or >>> * Should be dropped entirely (option 1b). >>> >>> If your vote is for option 1a, please respond to the following >>> additional question: >>> >>> 2. Whether "pure code" mode should be: >>> >>> * Toggled globally by a php.ini option such that <?php and ?> tags are >>> completely forbidden when this mode is active (option 2a), or >>> * Switched on by keywords and SAPI options that allow the sysadmin and >>> developer to make the choice at runtime, with the ability to make that >>> choice differently for different files or invocations, so that a mix >>> of "pure code" files and files that forbid <?php and ?> can exist >>> (option 2b). >>> >>> 3. If your vote is for option 2b, please respond to the following >>> additional question: >>> >>> Whether "pure code" mode should: >>> >>> * Forbid requiring a non-pure file from a pure file (option 3a), or >>> * Permit requiring non-pure files from pure files (option 3b). >>> >> >> Question 3 may not be necessary given a possible new parallel approach >> being discussed. Please refer to my RFCs thread for details and to weigh >> in on that. >> >> >>> >>> I believe Kris Craig and Yasuo Ohgaki will find that these questions >>> accurately sum up our really significant unreconciled differences >>> (and, with the inclusion of question 1, the position of those who >>> don't want the feature at all). >>> >>> These three questions deliberately don't address what the keywords or >>> file extensions or other mechanisms are called exactly, because I >>> believe those issues to be fairly simple to agree upon once we have >>> decided the basics. >>> >> >> Overall, I like the idea, but I think it's premature. For my part, I >> still need more time to brainstorm and discuss. Keep in mind that my RFC >> was only drafted a few days ago and the RFC process requires a *minimum* of >> 2 weeks before a vote can be held. I'd prefer to adhere to that rule for >> the time being. I see no benefit in rushing things. I ask that everybody >> come back to the table and spend some more time trying to establish where >> we share common ground. I can't support a vote, at least on my RFC, at >> this time. >> >> >> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > hi, >>> > >>> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Perhaps a new list for RFC-specific discussions? =) >>> > >>> > We don't need yet a new list. Sit down together and get over your >>> > differences and create the RFC or more if you can't get over your >>> > differences. >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > -- >>> > Pierre >>> > >>> > @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org >>> > >>> > -- >>> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Tom Boutell >>> P'unk Avenue >>> 215 755 1330 >>> punkave.com >>> window.punkave.com >>> >>> -- >>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>> >>> >> >
