Graham,
GothAlice (don't know off hand there real name), keeps going around and
claiming:
Alice Zoë Bevan-McGregor. If the unicode in my newsreader doesn't
work, that's an e with an umlaut.
I have pointed out a couple of times to them that there is no way that
PEP 444 has been blessed as
"After some discussion on the Web-SIG mailing list, PEP 444 is now
"officially" WSGI 2, and PEP is WSGI 1.1"
This out-of-context quote came after prior discussion of PEP 444 (and
clear statements of draft-ness) throughout a rather excellent thread on
HTTP server performance.
The majorit
At 05:04 PM 1/2/2011 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
That PEP was rejected in the end and was
replaced with PEP 342 which worked quite differently, yet I cant see
that the WSGI specification was revisited in light of how it ended up
being implemented and the implications of that.
Part of my cont
Alice and Graham,
I worry a lot that there's a fight brewing here that will lead to
disappointment all around. I see accusations, demands, and passion. I also
see a lot of apathy in the web-sig. This is not a recipe for a successful
standard.
Since it appears we have or are about to face a breakd
On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 09:21 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Graham, I hope that you can stop being grumpy about the process that
> is being followed and start using your passion to write up a critique
> of the technical merits of Alice's draft. You don't have to attack the
> whole draft at once --
At 01:47 AM 1/2/2011 -0800, Alice BevanMcGregor wrote:
The only things that depress me in the slightest are the lack of
current discussion on the Web-SIG list (I did post a thread
announcing my rewrite and asking for input, but there were no takers)
FWIW, my lack of interest has been due to t
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 09:21 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Graham, I hope that you can stop being grumpy about the process that
> > is being followed and start using your passion to write up a critique
> > of the technical merits of Al
On 2011-01-02 09:21:29 -0800, Guido van Rossum said:
Alice hasn't posted a link to her rewrite of PEP 444 in a while. AFAICT
it's this:
https://github.com/GothAlice/wsgi2/blob/master/pep444.textile . I find
it a bit disturbing that the "official" copy of PEP 444
(http://www.python.org/dev/peps
On 2011-01-02 11:14:00 -0800, Chris McDonough said:
I'd suggest we just embrace it, adding minor tweaks as necessary, until
we reach some sort of technical impasse it doesn't address.
Async is one area that does not cover, and that by not having a
standard which incorporates async means c
It sounds like async could be a separate PEP, if that will make acceptance
of PEP 444 easier.
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Alice Bevan–McGregor
wrote:
> On 2011-01-02 11:14:00 -0800, Chris McDonough said:
>
>> I'd suggest we just embrace it, adding minor tweaks as necessary, until we
>>> reac
On 2011-01-02, at 21:38 , Alice Bevan–McGregor wrote:
> On 2011-01-02 11:14:00 -0800, Chris McDonough said:
>>> I'd suggest we just embrace it, adding minor tweaks as necessary, until we
>>> reach some sort of technical impasse it doesn't address.
> Async is one area that does not cover, and
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Alice Bevan–McGregor
wrote:
> On 2011-01-02 09:21:29 -0800, Guido van Rossum said:
>
>> Alice hasn't posted a link to her rewrite of PEP 444 in a while. AFAICT
>> it's this: https://github.com/GothAlice/wsgi2/blob/master/pep444.textile. I
>> find it a bit disturbi
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Masklinn wrote:
> On 2011-01-02, at 21:38 , Alice Bevan–McGregor wrote:
> > On 2011-01-02 11:14:00 -0800, Chris McDonough said:
> >>> I'd suggest we just embrace it, adding minor tweaks as necessary, until
> we reach some sort of technical impasse it doesn't addre
On 2011-01-02 13:31:45 -0800, Guido van Rossum said:
Masklinn, those are pretty strong words (bordering on offensive). I'm
sure Alice has a different opinion. Alice, hopefully you can write down
your ideas for all to see? Perhaps you have an implementation too?
Maybe seeing a concrete proposal
On 2011-01-02 11:57:19 -0800, P.J. Eby said:
FWIW, my lack of interest has been due to two factors. First,
theoriginal version of PEP 444 before you worked on it was questionable
in my book, due to the addition of new optional features (e.g. async),
and second, when I saw your "filters" propos
On 2011-01-02, at 23:16 , Alice Bevan–McGregor wrote:
>> (Just trying to keep this thread from degenerating into a shouting match.)
> I missed how his statements could be construed as offensive. :/
I missed it as well (though my report might have been brusque), and definitely
didn't intent it to
At 12:38 PM 1/2/2011 -0800, Alice BevanMcGregor wrote:
On 2011-01-02 11:14:00 -0800, Chris McDonough said:
I'd suggest we just embrace it, adding minor tweaks as necessary,
until we reach some sort of technical impasse it doesn't address.
Async is one area that does not cover, and that b
-- Forwarded message --
From: Benoit Chesneau
Date: Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Web-SIG] PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0
To: Alice Bevan–McGregor
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Alice Bevan–McGregor
wrote:
> On 2011-01-02 11:14:00 -0800, Chris McDonough said:
>>>
>>> I'd sug
At 02:21 PM 1/2/2011 -0800, Alice BevanMcGregor wrote:
On 2011-01-02 11:57:19 -0800, P.J. Eby said:
* -1 on the key-specific encoding schemes for the various CGI
variables' values -- for continuity of coding (not to mention
simplicity) PEP 's approach to environ encodings should beused.
(T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/02/2011 04:31 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Masklinn wrote:
>
>> On 2011-01-02, at 21:38 , Alice Bevan–McGregor wrote:
>>> On 2011-01-02 11:14:00 -0800, Chris McDonough said:
> I'd suggest we just embrace it
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> On 01/02/2011 04:31 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Masklinn wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-01-02, at 21:38 , Alice Bevan–McGregor wrote:
On 2011-01-02 11:14:00 -0800, Chris McDonough said:
>> I'd suggest we just
21 matches
Mail list logo
