<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ty Sarna wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:EA5A45AB-FB57-427C-908A-44559D3517AD@sarna.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sep 16, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Massimo Di Pierro wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">My experience in various
communities suggests that naming the new totally-bw-incompat thing the
same as the old thing weakens both the new thing and the old thing,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I share the same experience.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Interesting. Do you feel that Python 3.x should have been named something other than Python?
I think that would rather have weakened both 3.x and 2.x by suggesting a fork, placing the two in competition, when the goal was to have one supersede the other, as is also the case here.</pre>
</blockquote>
FWIW, I agree on this point. WSGI2 seems better than WEB3. IMO, its
OK to put a disclaimer at the top of the spec that states they are
different specs and entirely backwards incompatible. If there is
consensus to more away from WSGI, then I think a name other than WEB3
is in order. Its just too generic.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--------------------------------------
Randy Syring
Intelicom
502-644-4776
"Whether, then, you eat or drink or
whatever you do, do all to the glory
of God." 1 Cor 10:31</pre>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>