Re: usage of PEAR_Exception

--On May 2, 2007 1:46:28 PM -0700 Joshua Eichorn <josh@bluga.net> wrote: > I agree we need a central place for RFCs, and with your comments in mind > I think they could all use a review, and maybe a summary of each one > would also be good. > > I'm going to put together a formal proposal for how we should handle RFCs > (including updating them etc) and see if I can get it approved by the > PEAR group. Let me know if you'd like to help put this document together. I don't think we need to change the RFCs (the existing RFCs, nor the processes related to RFCs in general.) all we need is a section on the web site which shows all the pepr proposals which are marked as RFCs. pepr should immortalize RFCs. and we need to figure out why at least one RFC is "missing" when you browse in pepr. it's a seperate task (and nontrivial) to expand the manual when RFCs add/change things. RFCs should never be edited. A new RFC should be created to clarify if that's necessary, or completely supercede. The IETF already has the paradigm right... -c