2009/8/7 Damjan <[email protected]>: > >> 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!
The issue raised over UTF-8 are significant enough to kill that idea. At least I can't see getting any agreement on it to make it worthwhile. What I would like to know is if rack and jack only use UTF-8 as stated by one person, what do they do to handle the problems people are raising as a reason not to do it in WSGI. Graham --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
