[Web-SIG] Request for Comments on upcoming WSGI Changes
graham.dumpleton at gmail.com
Tue Sep 22 04:26:07 CEST 2009
2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>:
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:
as the current thinking isn't exactly what I blogged about and has
shifted a bit as the discussion has progressed.
> On 22/09/2009, at 12:07 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>> 2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>:
>>> Most things is not the Web. How will you handle serving images through
>>> 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?
>>> 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 at python.org
>>> Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
More information about the Web-SIG