On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:04 PM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > At 09:43 AM 1/7/2011 -0500, James Y Knight wrote: >> >> On Jan 7, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: >> > I don't understand why you are attached to this horrible hack >> > (bytes-in-unicode). It introduces more work and more confusing than >> > using raw bytes unchanged. >> > >> > It doesn't work and so something has to be changed. >> >> It's gross but it does work. This has been discussed ad-nausium on web-sig >> over a period of years. >> >> I'd like to reiterate that it is only even a potential issue for the >> PATH_INFO/SCRIPT_NAME keys. Those two keys are required to have been >> urldecoded already, into byte-data in some encoding. For all the other keys >> (including the ones from os.environ), they are either *properly* decoded in >> 8859-1 or are just ascii (possibly still urlencoded, so the app needs to >> urldecode and decode into a string with the correct encoding). > > Right. Also, it should be mentioned that none of this would be necessary if > we could've gotten a "bytes of a known encoding" type. If you look back to > the last big Python-Dev discussion on bytes/unicode and stdlib API breakage, > this was the holdup for getting a sane WSGI spec. > > Since we couldn't change the language to fix the problem (due to the > moratorium), we had to use this less-pleasant way of dealing with things, in > order to get a final WSGI spec for Python 3.
If the fix was that critical; exceptions should be made. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
