On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> The approach I have in mind is going back to a consensus model by
> default, allowing truly everybody to participate and giving the
> opportunity to call for a vote if consensus can't be reached.
It never worked in the last decade+, wha
>> Hi,
>>
>> That's a bad thing we need to fix ASAP.
>>
>> I think for 5.6.1 we'll revert it , if not, we'll need an RC2, which
>> is something we usually don't do (but as this could involve security,
>> we may do it).
>> The fix can be merged to 5.5.18RC1, next week, to have an RC cycle if
>> not
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 14:36 -0700, Kris Craig wrote:
>
> > > Slightly provocative: Why should I be forced to maintain code by
> > people who
> > > don't want to maintain it themselves?
> >
> > Nobody is forcing you to do anythin
> What would happen is it'd throw an E_DEPRECATED for at least the remainder
> of 5.x, then throw the usual E_WARNING for a missing argument starting in
> 7.x with no default.
Sounds OK to me now that I've noticed this:
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68081
Pretty sure that's a sane report,
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Sanford Whiteman
wrote:
> Hi Kris,
>
> On a broad level, your RFC asserts that checkdnsrr() is used to
> determine "whether or not a hostname exists," but you don't actually
> define "exists." It seems to me you're glossing over the fact that
> "existence" is app
Hi Kris,
On a broad level, your RFC asserts that checkdnsrr() is used to
determine "whether or not a hostname exists," but you don't actually
define "exists." It seems to me you're glossing over the fact that
"existence" is application-specific and doesn't add up to one single
RR type or set of t
Hi,
On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 14:36 -0700, Kris Craig wrote:
> > Slightly provocative: Why should I be forced to maintain code by
> people who
> > don't want to maintain it themselves?
>
> Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You choose to contribute to PHP
> in the manner in which you do, just a
On Sep 23, 2014 1:23 AM, "Park Framework" wrote:
>
> PHP serialization is slowest in PHP Session, clients NoSQL, ...
> I would like to have in PHP 7, a new serialization algorithm or custom
> handler to serialize.
The latter is already possible and there are many good extensions doing
that. Igbin
PHP serialization is slowest in PHP Session, clients NoSQL, ...
I would like to have in PHP 7, a new serialization algorithm or custom
handler to serialize.
My opinion is that the best choice is to use msgpack, it is
+110% faster
-30% data size
HHVM discussed this issue, but all boils down to bac
On Sep 22, 2014 11:06 PM, "Stas Malyshev" wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > - One about having scalar typed arguements, hinted or not, simple
> > yes/no, so we at least agree on having the feature
>
> I'm not sure how that would work. We agree on having what feature?
> Having coercive typing and having strict
Good evening again,
Here’s a new RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/zpp_fail_on_overflow
Thoughts appreciated, as is help with the patch, though I can probably manage
on my own.
Thanks!
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit
On Sep 22, 2014 8:39 AM, "Johannes Schlüter" wrote:
>
>
>
> On September 22, 2014 4:21:29 PM CEST, Rafael Kassner
wrote:
> >IMHO, denying non-karma people to vote is like to making PHP a
> >company's
> >product, or, in another words, "you use what we built and shut up",
> >because
> >only listeni
On 22 September 2014 04:32, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if it
>> is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e. not contributors to
>> the documentation, extensions, php-src or anything els
Hi!
> - One about having scalar typed arguements, hinted or not, simple
> yes/no, so we at least agree on having the feature
I'm not sure how that would work. We agree on having what feature?
Having coercive typing and having strict typing are two different
options, working in different way and i
Hi!
> I didn’t close it because the time suited me most. I made an honest
> mistake and closed it 22 or so hours early because I forgot I’d
> opened the vote at ~23:00 and not ~02:00. Unfortunately, I realised
> my mistake after merging the patch. This was definitely not
> intentional.
That's why
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2014 10:05 PM, "Levi Morrison" wrote:
>
> > I don't want to say anything else here, as technically this is thread
> hijacking (sorry Andrea) but I am very interested in collaborating with
> anyone who would like to try to improv
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2014 3:31 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Michael Wallner wrote:
> >
> > > On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I would
Hi,
Just a side remark: from an external point of view, it seems like you need
an application to handle the RFCs. An application with a strict business
logic, which leaves no ambiguity as to when and how an RFC should be valid.
The "what" is more ambiguous however, and I'm not sure as to how it s
On Sep 22, 2014 10:05 PM, "Levi Morrison" wrote:
> I don't want to say anything else here, as technically this is thread
hijacking (sorry Andrea) but I am very interested in collaborating with
anyone who would like to try to improve the RFC process. Perhaps reply to
me off-list if you are also in
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68057
>
> is a regression introduced in PHP 5.6.
> So code which still worked with PHP 5.5 breaks in 5.6.
>
> The big issue is here, that the fix for this bug requires ABI breakage.
> (changing an unsigned short
On Sep 22, 2014 8:56 PM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
> account for people contributing docs and other types of submissions. I'd
> also consider adding a requirement for contributing at least X commits
(say
> 20 or 50) so that someone who did a one-off or two-off patch won't have
the
> same vote as som
On Sep 22, 2014 8:56 PM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
> Last, the 2nd sub-bullet of the 2nd bullet ("regular participant of
> internals discussions") is especially problematic - as it basically pulls
> the barrier to entry to nothing, and is the opposite of well-defined.
When
> we revise the Voting RFC,
> -Original Message-
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 2:33 PM
> To: Andrea Faulds
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Is it fair that people with no karma can vote on
> RFCs?
>
> I think people's votes should only count if they have
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68057
is a regression introduced in PHP 5.6.
So code which still worked with PHP 5.5 breaks in 5.6.
The big issue is here, that the fix for this bug requires ABI breakage.
(changing an unsigned short into a zend_uint)
I know that ABI compatibility is a pretty ser
Hi,
Having done a few PRs now, I\'d like to assign bugs to myself on
bugs.php.net to avoid having several people working on the same one. For this,
I need a php.net account :-)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 9/20/14, 0:11 , Sara Golemon wrote:
On Sep 19, 2014, at 18:29, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things,
Yes, you are.
but I wonder if it is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e. not
contributors to the documentation, extensions, php-src or anything
> Hi,
>
> That's a bad thing we need to fix ASAP.
>
> I think for 5.6.1 we'll revert it , if not, we'll need an RC2, which
> is something we usually don't do (but as this could involve security,
> we may do it).
> The fix can be merged to 5.5.18RC1, next week, to have an RC cycle if
> not part of a
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> Slightly provocative: Why should I be forced to maintain code by people who
> don't want to maintain it themselves? Probably even due to votes by people
> about whom I don't know anything? Mind that most maintenance work by
> most contr
> Hi,
>
> Sorry to have not detect this problem at RFC time, but the new hardcoded
> cipher list, cause some trouble in Fedora.
>
> See: https://bugs.php.net/68074
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Nmav/CryptoPolicies
> https://wiki.php.net/r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Sorry to have not detect this problem at RFC time, but the new hardcoded
cipher list, cause some trouble in Fedora.
See: https://bugs.php.net/68074
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Nmav/Crypto
Hi,
Sorry to have not detect this problem at RFC time, but the new hardcoded
cipher list, cause some trouble in Fedora.
See: https://bugs.php.net/68074
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Nmav/CryptoPolicies
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/improved-tls-
On September 22, 2014 4:21:29 PM CEST, Rafael Kassner wrote:
>IMHO, denying non-karma people to vote is like to making PHP a
>company's
>product, or, in another words, "you use what we built and shut up",
>because
>only listening people won't allow to accept/deny a particular RFC, only
>votes do
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Le 19/09/2014 18:25, Daniel Lowrey a écrit :
In an effort to fix a very old (seven years old) DoS
vulnerability involving encrypted streams I created a
regression where feof() n
IMHO, denying non-karma people to vote is like to making PHP a company's
product, or, in another words, "you use what we built and shut up", because
only listening people won't allow to accept/deny a particular RFC, only
votes do. People surely don't comment (myself included) why they are
choosing
On Sep 22, 2014 3:29 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > >
> > > On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:32, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Perhaps I’
On Sep 22, 2014 3:31 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> > On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > >
> > > On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > >
> > >> I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a
> > >> "50%
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Michael Wallner wrote:
> On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >
> > On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> >> I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a
> >> "50% majority", 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds
> >> *majo
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Andrey Andreev wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >
> > On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:32, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if
> >>> it is
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:32, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if it
> >> is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e. not contributors to
On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
>> I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a
>> "50% majority", 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds
>> *majority*. The RFC, like with many other important things is of
>
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:32, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if it
>>> is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e. not contributo
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:32, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if it
>> is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e. not contributors to
>> the documentation, extensions, php-src or anything
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans wrote:
> I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a "50%
> majority", 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds *majority*. The
> RFC, like with many other important things is of course too vague on
> this.
An 8:8 vote is not a
Hi Derick,
Thanks for your answer!
Indeed, I did plan on doing another PR for 5.6 while keeping ZEND_ARG_INFO.
I'll review your notes and take care of them.
Regards,
*Florian Margaine*
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Florian Marga
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 03:16 +0100, Leigh wrote:
> >
> > I think everyone with the ability to vote should have to communicate
> > their reasons behind their yes/no publicly on this mailing list for
> > it to be valid. If you cannot describe in your
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if it
> is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e. not contributors to
> the documentation, extensions, php-src or anything else, to have the
> ability to vote on RFCs?
>
> I’d nev
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Patrick Schaaf wrote:
> Am 20.09.2014 01:35 schrieb "Andrea Faulds" :
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isset_ternary#vote
>
> Hi,
>
> got a question after being bitten my the issue yesterday in the context of
> the "@yadda ?: 'default'" form yesterday:
>
> What about yadda
Hi Florian,
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Florian Margaine wrote:
> I specifically mean to ask @derick about this issue I'm having, since
> he is the maintainer of ext/date.
>
> I wrote this pull request for the DateTimeZone::getOffset method to
> accept a DateTimeInterface instead of a DateTime object
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Peter Cowburn wrote:
> On 22 September 2014 10:21, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Peter Cowburn
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If you say so. Still, the asking of individuals to remove their
> > > votes so that the tally is in you favour is inexcusable.
>
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2014 2:16 AM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sep 22, 2014 1:09 AM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kris Craig
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>
On 22 September 2014 11:10, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> If we’re going to reopen or restart, I’d prefer to completely restart it than
> to just reopen it. A clean slate.
Most of the issues I saw raised were related to one half of the RFC,
the shifts or the casts, perhaps you'd make better headway s
On 2014-09-21 02:21, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Leigh wrote:
>> On 20 September 2014 20:47, Sara Golemon wrote:
>>> I like the general idea, but rather than explicitly focusing on
>>> the 'or' keyword, how about just giving all loop constructs
>>> (do/while/for/foreach
On 22 Sep 2014, at 10:36, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> WTF is going on here? Looks like the vote was closed nearly 24 hours
> early on a weekend. While the latter is not nice, closing early is a
> no-go. So what are we going to do? Reopen the vote for another day or
> completely restart it?
If w
On Sep 22, 2014 2:16 AM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 22, 2014 1:09 AM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kris Craig
wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Sep 21, 2014 11:52 PM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
> >>
> >> Well,
On 22/09/14 10:42, Pierre Joye wrote:
> This is getting really annoying. 2nd or 3rd time it happens, between
> people changing contents during votes, closing too early, too late,
> asking to change votes, etc.
At a very least a vote should not end until at least 7 days after the
last change to the
On 22 Sep 2014, at 10:46, Xinchen Hui wrote:
> ask people to vote yes, close the vote immeditely once it reach the
> 2/3 requirement..
>
> it's not cool, and it's not about RFC process... it's about manner…
I didn’t close it because it reached the 2/3 requirement. I was lucky that one
more
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Peter Cowburn wrote:
>
>
> On 22 September 2014 10:21, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Peter Cowburn
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > If you say so. Still, the asking of individuals to remove their votes so
>> > that the tally is in you favour is
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> WTF is going on here? Looks like the vote was closed nearly 24 hours
> early on a weekend. While the latter is not nice, closing early is a
> no-go. So what are we going to do? Reopen the vote for another day or
> completely restart it?
On 22 September 2014 10:21, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Peter Cowburn
> wrote:
>
> >
> > If you say so. Still, the asking of individuals to remove their votes so
> > that the tally is in you favour is inexcusable.
>
> did I miss something? What is this "request to remo
WTF is going on here? Looks like the vote was closed nearly 24 hours
early on a weekend. While the latter is not nice, closing early is a
no-go. So what are we going to do? Reopen the vote for another day or
completely restart it?
--
Regards,
Mike
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mai
On 22 September 2014 08:49, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>
> Maybe I am too conservative. I don't like this idea. :<
>
> And I DO THINK, we should try to stop brings lots of new things into PHP7.
>
> I am worring whether it can be release in the next year
Can you give some more details on why y
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote:
>
> If you say so. Still, the asking of individuals to remove their votes so
> that the tally is in you favour is inexcusable.
did I miss something? What is this "request to remove votes" thing?
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.o
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2014 1:09 AM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sep 21, 2014 11:52 PM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
>>
>> Well, for what I can see users already take into account this part of
>>
On 22 September 2014 08:17, Christian Stoller wrote:
>
> I like this proposal as I am using this feature in Twig very often.
> But I would really prefer using "else" instead of "or", because it
> is already common in the mentioned projects.
> Maybe you could reconsider if it is really not possible
On Monday, 22 September 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 21 Sep 2014, at 22:49, Peter Cowburn > wrote:
>
> > It is closed now.
> >
> > The vote is closed now, fact. That does not prevent further (hopefully
> productive) discussion from happening, and it also doesn’t stipulate that
> the RFC mu
On Sep 22, 2014 1:09 AM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 21, 2014 11:52 PM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
>
> Well, for what I can see users already take into account this part of
> the issue then:
>
> https://github.com/search?l=php&q=checkdnsrr
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2014 11:52 PM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
Well, for what I can see users already take into account this part of
the issue then:
https://github.com/search?l=php&q=checkdnsrr&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93
changing the default will make creat
On 22/09/14 08:47, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Does anyone known if it's better to use libIDN (LGPL) or ICU (custom
>> > license deviated from the X license) from a license point of view?
> We already use ICU in many places, so it's more likely to be available and
> people can get IDN support "for fre
Hey:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Leigh wrote:
> Hello list!
>
> This is an item that has been repeatedly requested in various forms,
> with no solid implementation to back it up, yet remaining quite
> desirable to the developer community at large.
>
> Loops with a default block, executed in
> On 22 Sep 2014, at 08:18, Kévin Dunglas wrote:
>
> I'll implement optional (and not default) support of IDN in filter_var().
>
> Does anyone known if it's better to use libIDN (LGPL) or ICU (custom
> license deviated from the X license) from a license point of view?
We already use ICU in man
Sounds like a great idea! Don't forget to update
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68049 when it'll be done.
Regards,
*Florian Margaine*
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Kévin Dunglas wrote:
> I've recently proposed a refactoring of FILTER_VALIDATE_URL:
> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/826
I noticed a regression in 5.5.17RC1, reported it (#67965) and it got
fixed in f86b2193 on the 5.5 branch by Daniel Lowrey.
But this fix didn't make it in 5.5.17 final. I posted the following
message on the 5.5.17RC1 release announcement:
What's the benefit of doing a Release Candidate/QA cyc
I've recently proposed a refactoring of FILTER_VALIDATE_URL:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/826
I can easily add the support of this new flag is everyone agree.
2014-09-22 9:09 GMT+02:00 Florian Margaine :
> Oh, IE. *sigh*
>
> Adding a new flag sounds like a good idea indeed,
> `FILTER_VALID
I'll implement optional (and not default) support of IDN in filter_var().
Does anyone known if it's better to use libIDN (LGPL) or ICU (custom
license deviated from the X license) from a license point of view?
2014-09-19 16:18 GMT+02:00 Chris Wright :
> On 19 September 2014 14:48, Kévin Dunglas
From: Leigh [mailto:lei...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 11:57 PM
>
> Traditionally this is requested as a loop {} else {} structure,
> however due to the choice of keyword this causes significant BC
> problems.
>
> I have written an RFC presenting this feature as loop {} or {} along
Oh, IE. *sigh*
Adding a new flag sounds like a good idea indeed,
`FILTER_VALIDATE_UNCOMPLIANT_URL` sounds good enough?
I guess it should accept underscores and domain names starting with numbers
too.
Regards,
*Florian Margaine*
P.S: sorry Kevin for the double mail.
Le 22 sept. 2014 09:03, "Kév
On Sep 21, 2014 11:52 PM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
>
> hi Kris,
>
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
> > Per discussion in an earlier thread. Here's the RFC:
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/checkdnsrr-default-type
> >
> >
> > Basically, this RFC seeks to make it so that PHP's chec
Some browsers do. Some versions of IE are buggy when the URL include
underscores:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/794243/internet-explorer-ignores-cookies-on-some-domains-cannot-read-or-set-cookies
I think that filter_var must follow the RFC by default. Maybe can we add a
flag to allow malforme
78 matches
Mail list logo
