[Web-SIG] Is PEP 3333 the final solution for WSGI on Python 3?

[Deron Meranda]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> I don't think it's an either-or case.  PEP 3333 just means that there's a
> clear path to port WSGI 1 apps.  If somebody wants to champion a WSGI 1.1, a
> 2.0, and whatever else, that's great!

I agree, I think PEP 3333 is fine in its scope, it just makes WSGI 1
clearer and gives
a practical and usable path for Python 3 migration.

A newer protocol, whether that's 444 or something else, should then remain a
separate effort, and there's no urgent need to rush that now just so we can
get Python 3 support. Also we should be keeping closer tabs on how the
HTTPbis efforts at the IETF are doing, as a newer replacement protocol
should definitely be coherent with that.

In the mean time, I'd like to see the draft 444 updated soon to better
reflect it's
base on 3333 rather than 333.

-- 
Deron Meranda
http://deron.meranda.us/