[Web-SIG] Regarding the WSGI draft

Ben Sizer brsizer at kylotan.eidosnet.co.uk
Fri Aug 27 19:52:33 CEST 2004

Ian Bicking wrote:
> Ben Sizer wrote:
>> This is why I would like Python to have web support in the standard
>> library that is on a high enough level that you don't necessarily need a
>> framework to achieve something useful.
> We already have that support, and it even works pretty well with WSGI: 
> the cgi module.  What, the cgi module is stupid and annoying you say? 
> (Well, if you won't say it I will.)  To me that's evidence that Just Any 
> Old Thing won't do.

I agree that the cgi module won't do, but that's because I disagree that 
the cgi module is "on a high enough level". I do think that support for 
sessions, query strings, form handling, templating, and various 
url-parsing and html-escaping requirements need to be in that module for 
it to be considered high-level by my (admittedly subjective) standards.

> Why is WSGI's limited scope a problem?  I feel fairly certain that we 
> can get WSGI approved and start building things on it fairly soon, but 
> anything more expansive will take much, much longer to move forward on. 
> Your more expansive desires have been out there for a long time, if not 
> proposed by yourself, proposed by other people (including me).

The only reason I think the limited scope is a problem is because it 
doesn't get me significantly closer to being able to say to my friends 
"Python is a great language for developing web sites with". It's a shame 
because I can say that about Python regarding almost any other 
application area. Maybe things will change as WSGI develops, but I can 
only comment on the draft that I see.

Ben Sizer.

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list