No worries, and apologies for the manner of asking; I just wanted to provide feedback from an HTTP perspective before it got too far down the road. I'm happy to wait a bit longer for it to bake if that's more helpful.

Cheers,


On 22/09/2009, at 5:10 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:

2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <m...@mnot.net>:
You're twisting my words; nowhere did I say i wasn't willing to read the PEP. What I did say was that a proposal can and should be made in less than eleven pages; I'd like to give my feedback, both because I use Python and because I have some interest in HTTP. However, my time is limited, and I
already have a stack of other things to review on my desk.

He who writes the most words does not (hopefully, for the sake of the Python community) win. I appreciate that you've taken the time to reason out a proposal, but the minutia of how you got to that place should not obscure
the proposal itself.

I'm not sure how to take your "ticket monkeys" comment, so I'll ignore it.

Sorry if I come across as being short.

None of us has time and this whole WSGI on Python 3.0 issue has been
going on since start of last year. Many of us are quite tired of it
all. I also don't personally know who you are, not recollecting seeing
your name in any past discussions. I am told though you were involved
back at time of original WSGI specification drafting, so apologies.

The ticket monkeys reference is just the allusion to a help desk. I
always think of what happens when people jump on IRC as being worst
case. That is, they treat people there like help desk staff who only
exist to serve them and not anyone else. So, you see people who have a
complex problem, pose a question in a single line. They then expect a
even more complex solution to there problem, usually expressed in one
line again.

There is a book I have been meaning to read called the 'Trusted
Advisor' which apparently goes on about providing assistance to others
as comparing the idea of being like a ticket monkey (help desk),
versus building a relationship with people in order to understand
their real issues and provide better solutions. Obviously being an
advisor rather than a help desk is ultimately going to be better for
the people needing help, but if the customer has the frame of mind
that you are just the help desk and don't want to put any effort into
the relationship, it is hard to try and be that advisor.

So, I felt a bit like a help desk in the way I interpreted your comments.

Graham

On 22/09/2009, at 4:44 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:

2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <m...@mnot.net>:

That blog entry is eleven printed pages. Given that PEP 333 also prints
as
eleven pages from my browser, I suspect there's some extraneous
information
in there.

Could you please summarise? Requiring all comers to read such a
voluminous
entry is a considerable (and somewhat arbitrary) bar to entry for the
discussion.

If you aren't willing to read the PEP to understand WSGI why are you
even wanting to participate in the discussion in the first place? This
is a quite detailed discussion about the future of the WSGI
specification and not an IRC channel manned by ticket monkeys. :-(

Graham

Thanks,


On 22/09/2009, at 4:36 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:

2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <m...@mnot.net>:

So, what advice do you propose about decoding bytes into strings for
the
request-URI / method / request headers, and vice versa for response
headers
and status code/phrase? Do you assume ASCII, Latin-1, or UTF-8? How are
errors handled?

Are bodies still treated "as binary byte sequences", as per PEP 333?

I thought my blog post explained that reasonably well. Ensure you read
the numbered definitions.

If you can't work it out from the blog, point at the specific thing in the blog you don't understand and can help. Don't really want to go
explaining it all again.

Graham

Cheers,

On 22/09/2009, at 4:07 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:

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/




--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/




--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/




--
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

Reply via email to