> Including third-party extensions within the official PHP manual creates ambiguity regarding whether an extension is officially part of PHP itself.
AFAIK, every third party extension includes configuration and installation instructions that make clear whether the extension is part of php-src or not; can you point at an example of this confusion in the real world ? > This creates unclear expectations regarding: If the third-party extension maintainer went through the effort of generating documentation in an antiquated awkward format, they might expect typos not to require their input. However, I don't think any extension maintainer expects documentation maintainers to track API changes; they handle that themselves for the most part. It's my impression this is well understood among active maintainers. There are probably sections of the documentation likely contains sections for genuinely abandoned extensions and we should have a mechanism to address this. This idea as proposed is -1 from me, it seems to create an undue burden (on top of the format's inherent burden) for third-party maintainers. Cheers Joe On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 at 09:44, Florian Engelhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Jordi, > > On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 9:15 PM Jordi Kroon <[email protected]> wrote: > > [..] > > I've opened an RFC to separate third-party extension documentation > > (imagick, redis, mongodb, etc) from the official PHP manual, while > > keeping the existing DocBook tooling and infrastructure. > > [..] > > While I do not have RFC voting power, I wanted to let you know that, > as a current co-maintainer of ext-parallel, I do support your RFC. > > /Florian >
