[Web-SIG] bytes / unicode
solipsis at pitrou.net
Wed Jun 23 21:36:45 CEST 2010
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:23:33 -0400
Tres Seaver <tseaver at palladion.com> wrote:
> Perhaps such decisions need revisiting in light of subsequent experience
> / pain / learning. E.g:
> - - the repeated inability of the web-sig to converge on appropriate
> semantics for a Python3-compatible version of the WSGI spec;
> - - the subsequent quirkiness of the Python3 wsgiref implementation;
The way wsgiref was adapted is admittedly suboptimal. It was totally
broken at first, and PJE didn't want to look very deeply into it. We
therefore had to settle on a series of small modifications that seemed
rather reasonable, but without any in-depth discussion of what WSGI had
to look like under Python 3 (since it was not our job and responsibility).
Therefore, I don't think wsgiref should be taken as a guide to what
a cleaned up, Python 3-specific WSGI must look like.
> - - the slow adoption / porting rate of major web frameworks and libraries
> to Python 3.
Some of the major web frameworks and libraries have a ton of
dependencies, which would explain why they really haven't bothered yet.
I don't think you can't claim, though, that Python 3 makes things
significantly harder for these frameworks. The proof is that many of
them already give the user unicode strings in Python 2.x. They must
have somehow got the decoding right.
More information about the Web-SIG