[Web-SIG] WSGI is now Python 3-friendly

[Terry Reedy]

On 9/26/2010 1:33 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:

Thank you do doing the needed rewrite.

> Can we make it PEP 3333, then? ;-)
>
> That number would at least communicate that it's the same thing, but for
> Python 3.

A new rewriten PEP gives you a bit more freedom than doing it in place. 
It will be easier to refer to the existing PEP 333 rather than "an 
earlier version of this PEP".

>
> Really, my reason for trying to do the (non Py3-specific) amendments in
> a way that didn't require a new PEP number was because of the many
> ancillary questions that it raises for the community, such as:
>
> * Is this is some sort of competition/replacement to PEP 444?
> * What happened to the old one, why can't we just use that?
> * Why isn't there a different protocol version?

You can also (briefly) answer questions like these in a new section.
I would refer people to the web-sig if they have further questions.

> * How is this different from the old one?

You could mark added material is a way that does not conflict with rst 
or html. Or use .rst to make new text stand out in the .html web verion 
(bold, underlined, red, or whatever). People familiar with 333 can focus 
on the marked sections. New readers can ignore the marking.

> To be fair, I *also* wanted to avoid all the work associated with
> *answering* them. ;-) (Heck, I really wanted to avoid the work of having
> to even *think* about which questions *might* arise and how they'd need
> to be addressed.)
>
> OTOH, I can certainly see that my attempt to avoid this has *already*
> failed: it simply brought up a different set of questions, just on
> Python-Dev instead of Web-SIG or Python-list.

You can't win in situations like this.

> Oh well. Perhaps making the numbering appear to be a continuation will
> help a bit.
>
> Another option would be to make a PEP that consists solely of the
> amendments and errata themselves, as this would answer most of the above
> questions directly.

Please no. Terrible to read. Mark important changes, as suggested above, 
in a complete text.
>
> Still another would be to abandon the effort to amend the PEP, and
> simply leave things as they are now: AFAICT, the fact that these
> amendments aren't in the PEP hasn't stopped anybody from *treating* most
> of them as if they were. (Because everyone understands that failure to
> follow them constitutes a bug in your program, even if it technically
> complies with the spec.)

Please no ;-).

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy