On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Chris McDonough <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chrism@plope.com">chrism@plope.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 12:09 -0400, P.J. Eby wrote:<br>
> While the Web-SIG is trying to hash out PEP 444, I thought it would<br>
> be a good idea to have a backup plan that would allow the Python 3<br>
> stdlib to move forward, without needing a major new spec to settle<br>
> out implementation questions.<br>
<br>
</div>If a WSGI-1-compatible protocol seems more sensible to folks, I'm<br>
personally happy to defer discussion on PEP 444 or any other<br>
backwards-incompatible proposal.<br></blockquote></div><br>I think both make sense, making WSGI 1 sensible for Python 3 (as well as other small errata like the size hint) doesn't detract from PEP 444 at all, IMHO.<br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>Ian Bicking | <a href="http://blog.ianbicking.org">http://blog.ianbicking.org</a><br>