[Web-SIG] Standardized template API

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Feb 1 16:38:20 CET 2006

At 08:28 AM 2/1/2006 -0500, Kevin Dangoor wrote:
>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.

+1.  I just want to make it so that frameworks get a bigger win by 
supporting WSGI templating than by only implementing the vars-to-strings 
convention, in order to encourage more frameworks to let WSGI pass all the 
way through their stack.  This gets us a lot closer to the place where 
anything works from inside of anything.

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list