Hi Dennis, Overall it sounds like a reasonable RFC.
> Dennis: > > > Niels: > > > > I'm not so sure that the name "decode_html" is self-descriptive enough, it sounds very generic. > > The name is not very important to me. For the sake of history, the reason I have chosen “decode HTML” is because, unlike an HTML parser, this is focused on taking a snippet of HTML “text” content and decoding it into a “plain PHP string.” Why not make it two methods called "decode_html_text" and "decode_html_attribute"? Consider the following reasons: 1. The function doesn't actually decode html as such, it decodes either an html text node string or an html attribute string. 2. Saves the $context parameter and the constants/enums, making the call significantly shorter. 3. It feels like decoding either text or attribute are two significantly different things. I admit I could be wrong, if code like decode_html($e->isAttritbute() ? HtmlContext::Attribute : HtmlContext::Text, $e->getContent()) is likely to be seen. But I somehow don't foresee a lot of situations where text and attribute strings end up in the same code path? A couple of other options that would silence anyone opposed to implicitly favouring utf-8: html_text_to_utf8 and html_attribute_to_utf8 Best, Jakob
