> I think most web frameworks use setuptools at this point. I'd rather > get this as a distribution, rather than from the standard library. In > fact, I'd prefer to see all web-development libraries distributed > separate from the language in Python 3.
Keep in mind that there are two users of the web related standard python libraries. For web development I agree that using libraries distributed seperately from the python standard libraries is the way to go, but there are people who interact with the web that aren't doing web development per se. These libraries, especially the client- side ones, are used by people writing data processing tools, GUIs, one- off scripts, sys-admin tools, etc. For these people they may be perfectly happy doing all their Python needs with just the standard library - they don't want or need to learn about packaging and distributions when they just want to write a one-off script to pull some data off the web and output it into CSV. I've shown a hapless biology grad student who was going to manually copy thousands of records from a web app into Excel how this could be automated with a simple Python program. We ended up needing to use cookielib since the *$#&@*! web app we were scrapping data from was a bloated Java beast that required you to maintain session cookies (even though they served no purpose whatsoever ...). Trying to sort out why there was two cookie related libraries was an annoying stumbling block though, so +1 on removing Cookie and only keeping a re-named cookielib. _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
