On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 09:21 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Graham, I hope that you can stop being grumpy about the process that > > is being followed and start using your passion to write up a critique > > of the technical merits of Alice's draft. You don't have to attack the > > whole draft at once -- you can start by picking one or two important > > issues and try to guide a discussion here on web-sig to tease out the > > best solutions. Please understand that given the many different ways > > people use and implement WSGI there may be no perfect solution within > > reach -- writing a successful standard is the art of the compromise. > > (If you still think the process going forward should be different, > > please write me off-list with your concerns.) > > > > Everyone else on this list, please make a new year's resolution to > > help the WSGI 2.0 standard become a reality in 2011. > > I think Graham mostly has an issue with this thing being called "WSGI > 2". > > FTR, avoiding naming arguments is why I titled the original PEP "Web3". > I knew that if I didn't (even though personally I couldn't care less if > it was called Buick or McNugget), people would expend effort arguing > about the name rather than concentrate on the process of creating a new > standard. They did anyway of course; many people argued publically > wishing to rename Web3 to WSGI2. On balance, though, I think giving the > standard a "neutral" name before it's widely accepted as a WSGI > successor was (and still is) a good idea, if only as a conflict > avoidance strategy. ;-) > Well, it seems too late for that now. :-) Note that a new standard, even with a familiar name, doesn't automatically get wide adoption. This wouldn't be the first time that a new version of a popular standard is put forward by some well-meaning folks, which is subsequently ignored by most users. (IIRC this happened to several versions of IMAP, there's been an "improvement" of HTTP that nobody uses, and HTML 5 seems to be saying that XHTML was a mistake. So, let's discuss the merits. > That said, I have no opinion on the technical merits of the new PEP 444 > draft; I've resigned myself to using derivatives of PEP 3333 "forever". > It's good enough. Most of the really interesting stuff seems to happen > at higher levels anyway, and the benefit of a new standard doesn't > outweigh the angst caused by trying to reach another compromise. I'd > suggest we just embrace it, adding minor tweaks as necessary, until we > reach some sort of technical impasse it doesn't address. > Actually that does sound like an opinion on the technical merits. I can't tell though, because I'm not familiar enough with PEP 444 to know what the critical differences are compared to PEP 3333. Could someone summarize? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ 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