[Web-SIG] Request for Comments on upcoming WSGI Changes

[Graham Dumpleton]

2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>:
> That blog entry is eleven printed pages. Given that PEP 333 also prints as
> eleven pages from my browser, I suspect there's some extraneous information
> in there.
>
> Could you please summarise? Requiring all comers to read such a voluminous
> entry is a considerable (and somewhat arbitrary) bar to entry for the
> discussion.

If you aren't willing to read the PEP to understand WSGI why are you
even wanting to participate in the discussion in the first place? This
is a quite detailed discussion about the future of the WSGI
specification and not an IRC channel manned by ticket monkeys. :-(

Graham

> Thanks,
>
>
> On 22/09/2009, at 4:36 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
>> 2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>:
>>>
>>> So, what advice do you propose about decoding bytes into strings for the
>>> request-URI / method / request headers, and vice versa for response
>>> headers
>>> and status code/phrase? Do you assume ASCII, Latin-1, or UTF-8? How are
>>> errors handled?
>>>
>>> Are bodies still treated "as binary byte sequences", as per PEP 333?
>>
>> I thought my blog post explained that reasonably well. Ensure you read
>> the numbered definitions.
>>
>> If you can't work it out from the blog, point at the specific thing in
>> the blog you don't understand and can help. Don't really want to go
>> explaining it all again.
>>
>> Graham
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> On 22/09/2009, at 4:07 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, that's quite exhaustive.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the benefit of those of us jumping in, could you summarise your
>>>>> proposal
>>>>> in something like the following manner:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. How the request method is made available to WSGI applications
>>>>> 2. How the request-uri is made available to WSGI applications -- in
>>>>> particular, whether any decoding of punycode and/or %-escapes happens
>>>>> 3. How request headers are made available to WSGI apps
>>>>> 4. How the request body is made available to to WSGI apps
>>>>> 5. Likewise for how apps should expose the response status message,
>>>>> headers
>>>>> and body to WSGI implementations.
>>>>
>>>> Same as the WSGI PEP.
>>>>
>>>>  http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0333/
>>>>
>>>> Nothing has changed in that respect.
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22/09/2009, at 12:26 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reference?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2009/09/roadmap-for-python-wsgi-specification.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone else jumping in on this conversation with their own opinions
>>>>>> and who has not read it, should perhaps at least read that. Also read
>>>>>> some of the earlier posts in the numerous discussions this spawned at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  http://groups.google.com/group/python-web-sig?lnk=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as the current thinking isn't exactly what I blogged about and has
>>>>>> shifted a bit as the discussion has progressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22/09/2009, at 12:07 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most things is not the Web. How will you handle serving images
>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>> WSGI?
>>>>>>>>> Compressed content?  PDFs?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are perhaps misunderstanding something. A WSGI application still
>>>>>>>> should return bytes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The whole concept of any sort of fallback to allow unicode data to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> returned for response content was purely so the canonical hello
>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>> application as per Python 2.X could still be used on Python 3.X.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, we aren't saying that the only thing WSGI applications can
>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>> is unicode strings for response content.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you read my original blog post that triggered all this
>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>> this time around?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 22/09/2009, at 1:30 AM, René Dudfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> here is a summary:
>>>>>>>>>>  Apart from python3 compatibility(which should be good enough
>>>>>>>>>> reason), utf-8 is what's used in http a lot these days.  Most
>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>> layered on top of wsgi are using utf-8 (django etc), and lots of
>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>> clients are using utf-8 (firefox etc).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why not move to unicode?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Web-SIG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Web-SIG at python.org
>>>>>>>>> Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
>>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/graham.dumpleton%40gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>