On 11/20/2012 09:51 PM, Adam Harvey wrote: > On 21 November 2012 13:45, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com> wrote: >>> Proposal: I propose we revert this change. Future consideration might >> >> I see no reason to revert the change and keep dragging around the GUIDs. >> Data URLs are much better and cleaner solution, and only reasons not to >> do it are purely bureaucratic, for which I don't care much. We could >> keep the functions, but what these functions would do? > > The issue I have with this is just that we don't seem to be making > much of an effort to stick to the promises we've made around BC when > it doesn't suit us to. I agree: in practice, I can't imagine anyone > caring a jot about these functions being removed, but we've said that > when we're going to remove something, we'll deprecate for a minor > release, then remove. Why don't we live up to it?
We also have to apply common sense here. You are implicitly comparing ext/mysql which millions of sites use to these logo functions which 0 sites use. The one and only reason we had to add them over simply doing an <img src> tag was because people complained that we were tracking them. It is obviously way better to just stick an img src tag in your page if you want to put a php logo on there so there is no reason for people to use these functions and people don't. We weren't even going to document them actually, but someone did for completeness sake, I guess. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
