Re: [Web-SIG] HTML parsing - get text position and font size

2009/1/12 Girish Redekar girish.rede...@gmail.com: is still tedious as font sizes in html/css can be expressed in multiple methods (like FONT tags, sizes in pixels, relative sizes, default larger size for header etc). One can get down and code each of these cases, but I was hoping someone has

Re: [Web-SIG] wsgi.errors and close method

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:28, Manlio Perillo manlio_peri...@libero.it wrote: Note however, that Mercurial has fixed the problem: So, as the guy who inherited Mercurial's hgweb WSGI application (or rather, made it much more WSGI-compliant), I should say that, yes, I tried pretty hard to get all

Re: [Web-SIG] wsgi.errors and close method

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:44, Manlio Perillo manlio_peri...@libero.it wrote: Did you managed to remove usage of the write callable? Yes, I think we haven't been using that for a few versions now. Cheers, Dirkjan ___ Web-SIG mailing list

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI and start_response

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:13, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote: There is no such thing as a WSGI 2.0 PEP and there is no proper concensus either on what it should look like. Thus if you see anything claiming to implement WSGI 2.0, then it isn't and you should only view it as

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI and start_response

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:39, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote: WSGI 2.0 isn't about Python 3.X, it is about removing start_response(). Okay, so it is orthogonal, right? Python 3.X support can be catered for by clarifications in the WSGI 1.0 specification and to a degree how

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI and start_response

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 14:01, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote: They are not simplications. They are clarifications or just describing existing practice. They are not necessarily mod_wsgi specific. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were mod_wsgi specific, and they definitely

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI and start_response

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 14:46, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote: The last attempt was to have WSGI 1.1 as clarifications and Python 3.X. And when I say 'last attempt', yes there have been people who have stepped up to try and get this to happen in the past. I think you would

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI and start_response

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 01:35, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote: If that isn't done, we will be here in another year still arguing about whether some aspect of the specification should be changed or removed based on some individuals perceived need. I agree, WSGI 1.1 should be

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI and start_response

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:09, Manlio Perillo manlio_peri...@libero.it wrote: Ehm, the purpose of WSGI 2.0 is precisely to remove start_response and write callable with it... Right, there you go! Cheers, Dirkjan ___ Web-SIG mailing list

Re: [Web-SIG] PEP 444 (aka Web3)

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 13:32, Armin Ronacher armin.ronac...@active-4.com wrote: The motivation is that you can pass that to constructors of response objects already in place. response_tuple = response.get_response_tuple() response = Response(*response_tuple) The order body, status code,

Re: [Web-SIG] PEP 444 (aka Web3)

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 21:39, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: Or, to put it another way: splitting the spec into two 100% incompatible versions is a bad idea for Python 3 adoption.  With a WSGI 1 addendum, we should be able to make it possible to put the same apps and middleware on 2

Re: [Web-SIG] WSGI for HTTP/2.0 ?

On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: Well, thats certainly a challenge :). Whats the governance model here? Is a PEP appropriate, and if so - that gives us a BFDL or BFDL PEP-delegate to decide between bikeshed issues; and if its not a bikeshed issue

Re: [Web-SIG] Changes for WSGI 1.1

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Cory Benfield wrote: > Please let me know what you think! I reviewed all the pull requests and they look good to me, save one tiny nit that I left a comment for. Cheers, Dirkjan ___ Web-SIG mailing