-> >I sat down today to hack out a simple commenting system for HTML -> >articles, and ended up using WSGI to implement a pipe-style solution. -> > -> >You can see the results at -> > -> > http://www.idyll.org/~t/articles.cgi/ -> > -> >This CGI script serves HTML files from a directory hierarchy. Anyone -> >can attach a comment to any HTML file served by the script. -> -> Spiffy. It would be neat to plug this into a WSGI application that -> served as a proxy (redisplaying pages fetched from another location). -> Then you could point it at the Python documentation and get that -> php.net-like commenting that people are always asking for; it would -> probably be good to make the commenting more granular, but it's -> interesting to be able to develop the different parts so separately.
I thought about this a bit more. I like the proxy idea (and will implement it next time I have the urge to do some light coding). For the python docs, though, wouldn't it be better to just host the files on the same machine? I will probably develop a simple Quixote application to wrap the commenting code, too; having all this in CGI will get annoying, if I do anything more complex than what I'm doing now. -> Actually, I was just going to convert this silly little web-based image -> viewer I have to WSGI, and with this I could get a free commenting -> system. Hmm... The back-end is pretty lousy -- it's just a pickled dictionary of 'Comment' classes -- but that's modular, of course. I'll spruce up the commenting middleware itself & document that, and then make it directly available via DARCS. I'd be interested in people's opinions on how to format the entries & safeguard against XSS hacks. Right now I'm just pushing the exact HTML they wrote onto the pages, which strikes me as a Bad Idea. cheers, --titus _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list [email protected] Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
