[Web-SIG] Getting back to WSGI grass roots.
and-py at doxdesk.com
Wed Sep 23 13:49:25 CEST 2009
> So, rather than throw away completely the idea of bytes everywhere,
> and rewrite the WSGI specification, we could instead say that the
> existing conceptual idea of WSGI 1.0 is still valid, and just build on
> top of it a translation interface to present that as unicode.
I don't think we really need to. Almost nothing in WSGI itself actually
touches Unicode. HTTP headers may in theory be ISO-8859-1 (and certainly
should be handled as such), but in the real world they are exclusively
ASCII (anything else breaks browsers).
SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO is the only part of the spec that potentially
needs more than ASCII, and even then the majority of apps don't put any
Unicode characters in those (especially SCRIPT_NAME). I don't think it's
worth adding the complication of a two-layer interface just for this one
If we can hack around SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO separately as per the other
thread there's no longer any need for anything but ASCII, so WSGI's
strings can be bytes or unicode depending on your taste/Python-version,
without it hurting anyone. The important job of mapping
* query parameters,
* POSTed request bodies, and
* response bodies
between bytes and unicode remains firmly in the application/framework's
area of concern and needs no assistance from WSGI.
mailto:and at doxdesk.com
More information about the Web-SIG