> Not very well. > > We are having another argument about WSGI specification and Python 3.0 > at the moment on Python WEB-SIG list. The discussion seems to have > exploded over night and have about 30 messages to read about it yet. > > If some sort of resolution isn't reached this time I am going to give > up and simply not support Python 3.0.
I'd say that requiring UTF-8 (on the client side) and making most of WSGI unicode is the better option. Maybe, as P.J.E says, that way WSGI will loose some of it's idempotency with HTTP, but who cares... WSGI is about Python applications! And if a request comes that can't be decoded as UTF-8 .. then a "400 Bad Request" error should be thrown. The other option, will mean that every web framework and every WSGI middleware, and every programmer will have to reimplement the character conversion heuristics (and probably do it wrong). I don't see any problems with declaring an UTF-8 constraing for data coming from the HTTP side. Less (unneeded) choice for programmers, middleware and frameworks is good! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "modwsgi" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
