[Web-SIG] WSGI for Python 3
graham.dumpleton at gmail.com
Mon Aug 30 03:16:37 CEST 2010
On 30 August 2010 11:02, Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com> wrote:
> Ugh... why are we back at bytes again?
Because no official decision, by way of a vote or even consensus, has
ever been made, the bytes option never goes away.
The problem with bytes, before one even tries to compare it to
text/unicode option, is that there is no clear description of what is
meant by the bytes option. For all I can see, there are potentially
multiple interpretations of what is meant by bytes.
Although I almost begged that if we are going to discuss bytes,
compared to text/unicode, that agreement at least first be made about
the definition of the bytes leaning option, that request has pretty
well fallen on death ears. Thus the discussion yet again is going the
direction of just dithering with a lot of navel gazing and not much
As I brought up almost two years ago, if we are going to make any
progress on this, we are probably going to have a core group of people
nominated who can officially make the decision of what is done based
on a proper vote. This will be the only way there is going to be any
sort of acceptance of a decision. This idea that we can reach a
consensus just isn't working.
> I don't know of any concrete
> problems with using Latin1 (basically how mod_wsgi works). It would be nice
> to try out some tricky cases -- cookie parsing, HTTP proxies,
> output-modifying middleware, a few other cases. But I don't see a reason to
> expect they won't work. It also doesn't feel particularly *wrong*. The
> parsed portions of the request and response are mostly ASCII anyway, and the
> exceptions generally require wonky code anyway so a little transcoding isn't
> so bad.
> Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org
> Web-SIG mailing list
> Web-SIG at python.org
> Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
More information about the Web-SIG