[Web-SIG] Should PEP 3333 be Python 3-only? What about transcoding?
and-py at doxdesk.com
Thu Nov 4 02:26:11 CET 2010
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 19:19 -0400, P.J. Eby wrote:
> Should we ditch that, and say, "hey, if you want Python 2.x code
> samples, go see PEP 333?"
That seems reasonable to me: if there is indeed never going to be a
Python 2.8, there is no way the PEP can ever be accepted for a Python 2
Given this, I might go further and suggest dropping all mention of
Python 2. It might make the wording issues easier. (Although, ahem, that
would mean a bunch of rewriting for some poor soul.)
> 2. Make the CGI sample in 3333 do an indiscriminate transcode (which
> only takes a few lines) and add a note to indicate that a robust CGI
> implementation should only do it to CGI variables
Or go straight for unmolested os.environ, as long as there is that note
that it's not really the Right Thing. If we're going to be wrong for
some cases either way, might as well go for the simplest. The PEP code
needs to be illustrative more than it needs to be 100% correct.
mailto:and at doxdesk.com http://www.doxdesk.com
skype:uknrbobince gtalk:chat?jid=bobince at gmail.com
More information about the Web-SIG