[Web-SIG] PEP 444 (aka Web3)
bchesneau at gmail.com
Fri Sep 17 10:59:39 CEST 2010
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 16.09.2010 23:07, schrieb James Mills:
>>> - the web3 name
>>> If there is any value in this PEP and we find something to decide on,
>>> there is no reason this couldn't be WSGI 2. But until it's just
>>> something a small part of the web-sig community worked on directly
>>> a separate name is a good thing I think, because it does not reserve
>>> the name "WSGI 2" for something that might actually become WSGI 2
>>> in case this PEP gets rejected.
>> I personally still don't see any real benefit to changing the key names
>> from "wsgi" to "web3" (or whatever). I would prefer it remain the
>> same. If you're going to use Python3, you know you're using Python3
>> (you don't need "web3" key names to know that). (subjective)
> That statement shows another weakness of the "web3" name: this spec is not
> in the least exclusive to Python 3. (Which would be a bit useless, having
> two incompatible WSGI/web specs on two incompatible Python versions.)
> The goal would be to first migrate to WSGI2/web3, and *then* have an easy
> transition going to Python 3.
also WSGI acronym is defining better the purpose by itself than "web3"
which mean nothing.
More information about the Web-SIG