On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Leon Atkinson wrote:
> > Actually, I think it's a good idea to make a
> > summary of all those discussions
>
> > What about an always available discussion documentation on php.net ?
>
> Avi Lewin writes an excellent weekly column that summarizes discussions on
> this list.
>
This list is really nice now when the unnecessary noise is gone.
And try browsing the web archives now. They're actually readable. :)
--Jani
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Lukas Smith wrote:
>Honestly, how much spam is there on this list?
>Very few ... and they are quickly redirected .. act
Honestly, how much spam is there on this list?
Very few ... and they are quickly redirected .. actually the most
clutter from wrong posts come from 5 people telling that person to go
else where
I think improving the quality or better preventing crappy bug reports
would save more wasted mails ...
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 08:15:25PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >actually, i think both TYPE and LANGUAGE are required for validation
> >purposes. it really needs to support
> >
> >
At 20:01 16-08-01, Chris Gardner wrote:
>actually, i think both TYPE and LANGUAGE are required for validation
>purposes. it really needs to support
>
>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:01:56PM -0500, Chris Gardner wrote:
> actually, i think both TYPE and LANGUAGE are required for validation
> purposes. it really needs to support
>
>
actually, i think both TYPE and LANGUAGE are required for validation
purposes. it really needs to support
Hi Jon,
I'm fine with it, but dunno if I count. :)
At 18:30 8/16/2001, Jon Parise wrote the following:
--
>Has anyone given this any consideration, one way or another?
>
>--
>Jon Parise ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) . Rochester Inst. of Techn
