On 20.10.2016 at 14:15, Stephen Reay wrote: > As with Niklas, I have no vote, so my *only* option to prevent what I > consider to be a bad decision, is to post to this thread and hope that enough > of those who *do* have voting rights, reject the proposal. > > I understand what you’re proposing. But honestly I don’t even agree with the > premise that there is a *problem* that needs to be fixed. > > Did you know that if you manually set the Content-Length header to less than > the actual body length, many browsers (Safari, Chrome, and FF definitely) > will stop reading/processing the response at the length you specify? > So should we also prevent setting Content-Length via header() ? > > Honestly I don’t understand how this is still a discussion. The developer > failed to set the $replace argument to false. At most I would expect this to > result in a documentation note warning about the use of header(‘Set-Cookie…’). > > I appreciate you trying to make improvements, and I’d *definitely* be in > favour of the function naming cleanup you mentioned earlier, but all of this > “protected” headers and extra function calls, because someone forgot to type > “, false” seems ridiculous to me honestly.
Full ACK. -- Christoph M. Becker -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
