[Web-SIG] Request for Comments on upcoming WSGI Changes
pje at telecommunity.com
Tue Sep 22 16:01:07 CEST 2009
At 09:23 AM 9/22/2009 +0100, Alan Kennedy wrote:
> >> Actually, latin-1 bytes encoding is the *simplest* thing that could
> >> possibly work, since it works already in e.g. Jython, and is actually
> >> in the spec already... and any framework that wants unicode URIs
> >> already has to decode them, so the code is already written.
> > Except that nobody implements that
>So, if nobody implements that, then why are we trying to standardise it?
>Is there a real need out there?
>Or are all these discussions solely driven by the need/desire to have
>only unicode strings in the WSGI dictionary under python 3?
>Which is a worthy goal, IMHO. Java has been there since the very
>start, since java strings have always been unicode. Take a look at the
>java docs for HttpServlet: no methods return bytes/bytearrays.
>But the java servlet spec still ignores *all* of the encoding concerns
>being discussed here. Which means that mistakes/mojibake must happen
>all the time. And it's up to the author of the individual java web
>application to solve those problems, using a mechanism appropriate for
>their needs and local environment.
Right, and we're not going to be able to solve all the problems
either. What we want -- or at least what *I* want, is to ensure that
the design doesn't generate NEW opportunities for f***ing it up.
More information about the Web-SIG