2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <m...@mnot.net>: > OK, that's quite exhaustive. > > For the benefit of those of us jumping in, could you summarise your proposal > in something like the following manner: > > 1. How the request method is made available to WSGI applications > 2. How the request-uri is made available to WSGI applications -- in > particular, whether any decoding of punycode and/or %-escapes happens > 3. How request headers are made available to WSGI apps > 4. How the request body is made available to to WSGI apps > 5. Likewise for how apps should expose the response status message, headers > and body to WSGI implementations.
Same as the WSGI PEP. http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0333/ Nothing has changed in that respect. Graham > Cheers, > > > On 22/09/2009, at 12:26 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote: > >> 2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <m...@mnot.net>: >>> >>> Reference? >> >> See: >> >> >> http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2009/09/roadmap-for-python-wsgi-specification.html >> >> Anyone else jumping in on this conversation with their own opinions >> and who has not read it, should perhaps at least read that. Also read >> some of the earlier posts in the numerous discussions this spawned at: >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/python-web-sig?lnk= >> >> as the current thinking isn't exactly what I blogged about and has >> shifted a bit as the discussion has progressed. >> >> Graham >> >>> On 22/09/2009, at 12:07 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote: >>> >>>> 2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <m...@mnot.net>: >>>>> >>>>> Most things is not the Web. How will you handle serving images through >>>>> WSGI? >>>>> Compressed content? PDFs? >>>> >>>> You are perhaps misunderstanding something. A WSGI application still >>>> should return bytes. >>>> >>>> The whole concept of any sort of fallback to allow unicode data to be >>>> returned for response content was purely so the canonical hello world >>>> application as per Python 2.X could still be used on Python 3.X. >>>> >>>> So, we aren't saying that the only thing WSGI applications can return >>>> is unicode strings for response content. >>>> >>>> Have you read my original blog post that triggered all this discussion >>>> this time around? >>>> >>>> Graham >>>> >>>>> On 22/09/2009, at 1:30 AM, René Dudfield wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> here is a summary: >>>>>> Apart from python3 compatibility(which should be good enough >>>>>> reason), utf-8 is what's used in http a lot these days. Most things >>>>>> layered on top of wsgi are using utf-8 (django etc), and lots of web >>>>>> clients are using utf-8 (firefox etc). >>>>>> >>>>>> Why not move to unicode? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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/graham.dumpleton%40gmail.com >>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >>> >>> > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > _______________________________________________ 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
