[Web-SIG] process ..

Hi all, As external I'm a bit surprised and also disappointed about actual process about choosing/discussing next features or changes of SGI spec. I thought and I think process should be more formal. Like I see it since some months, there are people trying to put their views and

Re: [Web-SIG] Proposal to remove SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO

Ian wrote: some environments provide only the unquoted path. I think it's not terribly horrible if they fake it by re-quoting the path. If they are faking it, there should IMO be a way to flag that it's faked. Then an application that uses IRIs may choose to a. generate an error, or b.

Re: [Web-SIG] Request for Comments on upcoming WSGI Changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 P.J. Eby wrote: So you better believe that everybody else is going to copy the worst available examples of other people's WSGI code and ignore any documentation associated with it... and then they will expect it to work on your server. ;-)