Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Add WHATWG compliant URL parsing API

2025-02-27 Thread Rob Landers
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, at 22:01, Faizan Akram Dar wrote: > Hi, > > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, 20:55 Paul M. Jones, wrote: >> >> > On Feb 25, 2025, at 09:55, ignace nyamagana butera >> > wrote: >> > >> > The problem with your suggestion is that the specification from WHATWG and >> > RFC3986/398

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Add WHATWG compliant URL parsing API

2025-02-27 Thread Faizan Akram Dar
Hi, On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, 20:55 Paul M. Jones, wrote: > > > On Feb 25, 2025, at 09:55, ignace nyamagana butera > wrote: > > > > The problem with your suggestion is that the specification from WHATWG > and RFC3986/3987 are so different and that the function you are proposing > won't be able to c

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] Static property asymmetric visibility

2025-02-27 Thread Larry Garfield
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025, at 3:34 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: > I hereby open the voting on static-aviz properties: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static-aviz > > The vote will be open until 26 February. The vote is now closed. The final result is 15 Yes, 3 No, or 83% approval. The RFC has passed. Tha

[PHP-DEV] PHP 8.3.18RC1 Ready for testing

2025-02-27 Thread Jakub Zelenka
PHP 8.3.18RC1 has just been released and can be downloaded from: https://downloads.php.net/~eric/ or https://qa.php.net/ or use the git tag: php-8.3.18RC1 Windows binaries are available at: https://windows.php.net/qa/#php-8.3 Please test it carefully, and report any bugs to https://github.com

[PHP-DEV] PHP 8.4.5RC1 ready for testing

2025-02-27 Thread Calvin Buckley
PHP 8.4.5RC1 has just been released and may be downloaded from https://downloads.php.net/~saki/ Or use the git tag: php-8.4.5RC1 Windows binaries are available at: https://windows.php.net/qa/ Please test it carefully, and report any bugs at https://github.com/php/php-src/issues 8.4.5 should be

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Add WHATWG compliant URL parsing API

2025-02-27 Thread Paul M. Jones
> On Feb 25, 2025, at 09:55, ignace nyamagana butera > wrote: > > The problem with your suggestion is that the specification from WHATWG and > RFC3986/3987 are so different and that the function you are proposing won't > be able to cover the outcome correctly (ie give the developper all the