[Python-Dev] WSGI is now Python 3-friendly

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Sun Sep 26 04:15:52 CEST 2010

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> At 02:07 PM 9/25/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> This is a very laudable initiative and I approve of the changes -- but
>> I really think it ought to be a separate PEP rather than pretending it
>> is just a set of textual corrections on the existing PEP 333.
> With the exception of the bytes change, I ruled out accepting any proposed
> amendments that would actually alter the protocol.  The amendments are all
> either textual clarifications, clarifications of ambiguous/unspecified
> areas, or best-practice recommendations by implementors.  (i.e., which are
> generally already implemented in major servers)

Of those, IMO only textual clarifications ought to be made to an
existing, accepted, widely implemented standards-track PEP.

Clarifications of ambiguous/unspecified behavior can possibly rule as
non-conforming implementations that used to get the benefit of the
doubt. Best-practice recommendations also have the effect of changing
(perceived) compliance.

Really, what's the problem with creating a new PEP? PEPs are cheap --
it's getting the acceptance that's costly, and you've already gotten
that part. It doesn't have to be long. You can still make pure textual
clarifications to PEP 333 (basically, improve grammar) and add a
pointer to the new PEP. Or, you can create a new PEP that is an
updated copy of PEP 333, and just add a pointer to PEP 333 saying
"(especially in the context of Python 3) this PEP is now superseded by

I strongly disagree with using (standards-track) PEPs as mutable
documents -- before you know it people will have to use weasel words
like "compliant with PEP 333 as of date X" to describe their
software's conformity. If you add a new PEP #, software declared
compliant with PEP 333 remains compliant (and some such software can
now also claim compliance with the new PEP without any changes).

> The full list of things Graham and others have asked for or recommended
> would indeed require a 1.1 version at minimum, and thus a new PEP.  But I
> really don't want to start down that road right now, and therefore hope that
> I can talk Graham or some other poor soul into shepherding a 1.1 PEP
> instead.  ;-)

That's fine. It will just be another PEP.

> (Seriously: through an ironic twist of fate, I have done nearly *zero*
> Python web programming since around the time I drafted the first spec in
> 2004, so even if it makes sense for me to finish PEP 333, it makes little
> sense for me to be starting a *new* one on the topic now!)

Don't see this as a new spec. See it as a procedural issue.

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list