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

[P.J. Eby]

At 03:22 PM 9/22/2009 +0100, René Dudfield wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:07 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> > At 11:30 AM 9/22/2009 +0100, Alan Kennedy wrote:
> >>
> >> I see this as being the same as Graham's suggested approach of a
> >> per-server configurable charset, which is then stored in the WSGI
> >> dictionary, so that applications that have problems, i.e. that detect
> >> mojibake in the unicode SCRIPT_NAME or PATH_INFO, can attempt to undo
> >> the faulty decoding by the server.
> >
> > This puts the burden on the wrong end of the pipe: there are more apps than
> > servers and they would *all* have to check this in order to be sane.
> >
>
>Except most everyone is using unicode in their apps already through 
>frameworks.

Great, so only the frameworks need to change, and if we use utf8 
surrogateescape, only the applications which need non-utf8 encoding 
will need to do anything differently.

That's one factor weighing towards PEP 383, vs. continuing with 
latin-1 or going to bytes.

(Frankly, though, I'm getting tired of this handwaving about these 
frameworks that use unicode.  If they are putting objects of type 
'unicode' under WSGI-defined environ keys on Python 2.x, they are 
*not WSGI compliant*.  And conversely, if they are doing some kind of 
conversion already, it's not gonna kill them to do a slightly 
different conversion to support the new version of WSGI.)