MAL and I have obviously been going back and forth about two options on how to handle urllib.
One option is to move URLOpener and FancyURLOpener over to what is currently urllib2 and leave it at that. MAL's argument is that this is easier on people who use urllib's more advanced features. It also means users don't need to ship an extra module with their code. The second option is to not move the code over but provide urllib as a downloadable module from PyPI in a 3.0-compatible version. My argument for this is that we should have just a single approach for URLs and be done with it. Providing urllib externally allows people to let their code to continue to work, albeit with one third-party module. What do other people think? Either solution is acceptable to me, so I would really appreciate feedback. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
