On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Please review these things, *then *post a response. Thank you. > > > > --Kris > > > > > > Alright, perhaps we should address one thing at a time. Since you feel > you are repeating yourself I will alleviate repetition with manageable > questions that are fair and concise. I start reading your RFC and the > very first thing I come across is the title: > If you had started reading the RFC before posting several times about it, I would never have had to repeat myself in the first place lol. But I'm glad you finally chose to at least look at it. > > "Request for Comments: New File Type for Pure-Code PHP Scripts" > > My very first indication of what I'm about to read is that you are > proposing a "New File Type" for PHP, which you seem to contrarily > refute that you are doing. Yet, your title is clearly stating as much. > Now, I continue on reading the "Abstract" of your RFC. Which is > supposedly going to give me some fair and over-all indication of just > what it is you are requesting comments for... > When I asked that you read before posting, that didn't somehow translate into, "Please nit-pick over meaningless semantics like the RFC title." > > "This RFC proposes the creation of a new .phpp file type. This file > type will be parsed by the webserver as 100% PHP code; that is, all > code will be executed without <?php and ?> tags. No raw HTML output > would be allowed in these scripts using ?>, though echo/print and > other output statements will continue to work in those scripts without > any restriction." > > Everything that abstract states me seems to be completely contrary to > everything you're stating in this thread. So clearly the need for you > to repeat yourself is only due to the fact that you aren't > communicating your efforts clearly. Not that other people aren't > reading what you're writing. > How so? The RFC proposes the creation of a new .phpp file convention. Where in the RFC does it state that the current PHP configuration that uses SAPI handlers will be abolished in favor of string-matching file extensions instead? > > Please change your RFC to reflect the true nature of your proposal and > what you actually intend to propose. That way we won't have this > unnecessary repetition in the list and this frustration you're getting > from having to go back and forth. > See above. You're just taking the fact that the RFC proposes the new file extension convention and re-defining that to mean that handlers will be abolished. > > Until I can clearly understand what it is you are proposing just from > the very first few lines of your RFC I honestly don't see anything > else worth arguing over since your entire abstract seems to contradict > every word you're saying. > Ok, so let's recap what your last email basically said thus far: 1. I will now read your RFC for the first time, even though I've been criticizing it for awhile already. 2. The title of the RFC sucks. 3. The RFC proposes creating a new file extension convention; therefore, it proposes to eliminate SAPI handlers. 4. You should rewrite the RFC to say that you want to eliminate SAPI handlers so that it will match my characterization of it. 5. Until you rewrite your RFC to match my criticisms, I see no reason to read it any further. 6. I will now go back to just criticizing it without actually being informed. > Author: Kris Craig kriscr...@php.net > > I'm reading the correct RFC, am I not? This is *your* RFC? I'm not > confusing this with anyone else's am I? > No, you're not. You're completely redefinining it, in fact. See above. You did get the author part right, at least. > > Please modify your RFC title and abstract to tell me in a few short > and concise sentences precisely what you're proposing that doesn't > contradict everything you're telling us in the mailing list and I will > be glad to give it further consideration. :) Thanks > See above. You're just twisting the meaning in a rather peculiar way to fit what you've been saying. The RFC does NOT propose eliminating SAPI handlers. Your contention that proposing a new filename convention is the equivalent to eliminating SAPI handlers is, well, insane. If you want to explain that odd premise, be my guest. If your criticism was simply that the wording should be clearer to minimize confusion, I wouldn't have any problem with that. Instead, you gave it a wildly ridiculous interpretation and then used that as a basis for essentially accusing me of lying and condemning the RFC as some sort of diabolical effort to eliminate SAPI handlers. If you would like to actually debate this instead of throwing ridiculous characterizations out there, you might find me a bit more receptive. Otherwise, if I understand the way this works, I believe your next email should be the part where you decry this RFC as "Socialism" and accuse me of wanting to establish a series of SAPI death panels. --Kris
