RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [php-icu] Graphemes and unicode vs intl extension

The first thing we did was look at the coding standard. Stas explained the reason we chose the naming we did. Having to work on other tasks is not abandonment. It reflects that we also have other reponsibilities. Can you be specific about which requests you think should still be made? So far the open item is the naming convention. Is that it? The extension gives a lot of capapbility to php 5.2 and 5.3. But working in the existing release does constrain how we approach it. -----Original Message----- From: Hannes Magnusson [mailto:hannes.magnusson@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 4:43 AM To: Tex Texin Cc: Marcus Boerger; Pierre Joye; php-icu@lists.zend.com; PHP Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [php-icu] Graphemes and unicode vs intl extension Hi Tex On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Tex Texin <tex@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > Pierre, Marcus, et al. > > 1) The project started a year or so ago. So for a whole year none of you (not even the Zend employees that should know better) thought that there maight be a coding standard that you should follow? Both for the extension itself and everything it exposes to the user. > The manual documentation was announced by Stas for review to this list as well on Dec 4. And the changes requested by us still haven't been made. > So there has been opportunity for input on the specs and the project is above board. No one is > "deciding anything about PHP". Few people want this extension to be moved to core, which means: every decision about this extension is "deciding anything about PHP". > 2) I cannot fathom why you say that minds cannot be changed. Questions were asked and > answered. The discussion is ongoing. Where is the problem? This thread originated on php-icu@lists.zend.com. That is a big fat problem. Why didn't you use php-icu@lists.php.net? > 4) One more note: As the specs and beta have been out for months, we thought we were near > done. Also, some of the people that worked on this have to move on to other tasks. We also have a > need for the intl extension and so would like to see at least a first version become available. > > Considering the above, please don't interpret responses that propose to put in the next > version what some might consider to be enhancements, as anything other than we have run out of time > and man/woman power, but need and can use what is there today. So what you are saying is everyone working on the extension are simply waiting for the 1.0.0-stable release before they move on and will never look back? Thats awesome and the most important reason why this extension cannot go into core. -Hannes