[Web-SIG] Standardized template API

Kevin Dangoor dangoor at gmail.com
Wed Feb 1 14:28:15 CET 2006

On 1/31/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> Unlike Jim, I'm also actively *against* having such a spec because it
> creates the illusion that a useful problem has been solved.  I don't have
> anything against the Turbo/Buffet API, mind you, I just don't want it
> anywhere near a PEP.  It's a niche solution to a niche problem, which is
> allowing web frameworks to offer an illusion of choice to developers.

There may need to be two discussions here. There are some minor tweaks
to the current TurboGears template plugin spec that people want. I
don't know how many people are using those plugins, but I do know that
there are at least three. I'm fine with taking a first step of making
our changes to the simple variable-to-string interface and having that
be a de facto standard among those of us using these plugins.

If we can devise a standard that builds on WSGI in some useful way and
allows for more uses and wider adoption, as Phillip suggests, that
does seem like a fine goal for the web-sig. That effort is not going
to stop or hinder those of us who are already using these template
engine plugins happily, so I don't think we need to look at this as an
either-or proposition. The PEP would only cover the larger standard,
but we can still make good use of the tools we have today.


More information about the Web-SIG mailing list