On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:14 AM, 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: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 09:21 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:<br>
> Graham, I hope that you can stop being grumpy about the process that<br>
> is being followed and start using your passion to write up a critique<br>
> of the technical merits of Alice's draft. You don't have to attack the<br>
> whole draft at once -- you can start by picking one or two important<br>
> issues and try to guide a discussion here on web-sig to tease out the<br>
> best solutions. Please understand that given the many different ways<br>
> people use and implement WSGI there may be no perfect solution within<br>
> reach -- writing a successful standard is the art of the compromise.<br>
> (If you still think the process going forward should be different,<br>
> please write me off-list with your concerns.)<br>
><br>
> Everyone else on this list, please make a new year's resolution to<br>
> help the WSGI 2.0 standard become a reality in 2011.<br>
<br>
</div>I think Graham mostly has an issue with this thing being called "WSGI<br>
2".<br>
<br>
FTR, avoiding naming arguments is why I titled the original PEP "Web3".<br>
I knew that if I didn't (even though personally I couldn't care less if<br>
it was called Buick or McNugget), people would expend effort arguing<br>
about the name rather than concentrate on the process of creating a new<br>
standard. They did anyway of course; many people argued publically<br>
wishing to rename Web3 to WSGI2. On balance, though, I think giving the<br>
standard a "neutral" name before it's widely accepted as a WSGI<br>
successor was (and still is) a good idea, if only as a conflict<br>
avoidance strategy. ;-)<br></blockquote><div><br>Well, it seems too late for that now. :-)<br><br>Note that a new standard, even with a familiar name, doesn't automatically get wide adoption. This wouldn't be the first time that a new version of a popular standard is put forward by some well-meaning folks, which is subsequently ignored by most users. (IIRC this happened to several versions of IMAP, there's been an "improvement" of HTTP that nobody uses, and HTML 5 seems to be saying that XHTML was a mistake.<br>
<br>So, let's discuss the merits.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
That said, I have no opinion on the technical merits of the new PEP 444<br>
draft; I've resigned myself to using derivatives of PEP 3333 "forever".<br>
It's good enough. Most of the really interesting stuff seems to happen<br>
at higher levels anyway, and the benefit of a new standard doesn't<br>
outweigh the angst caused by trying to reach another compromise. I'd<br>
suggest we just embrace it, adding minor tweaks as necessary, until we<br>
reach some sort of technical impasse it doesn't address.<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div> </div></div>Actually that does sound like an opinion on the technical merits. I can't tell though, because I'm not familiar enough with PEP 444 to know what the critical differences are compared to PEP 3333. Could someone summarize?<br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>--Guido van Rossum (<a href="http://python.org/~guido">python.org/~guido</a>)<br>