[Web-SIG] WSGI for HTTP/2.0 ?

[Robert Collins]

On 22 September 2014 00:08, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> On 21 September 2014 16:43, Roberto De Ioris <roberto at unbit.it> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've proposed using github issues instead of documents; we can
>>> synthesis the issues into prose in the draft docs and reference code
>>> itself. I think this will be easier to manage than having a dozen
>>> different comment-documents in the repo.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>
>> I completely agree and i have already opened two 'issues'. If we change
>> idea on how to work on it feel free to delete them :)
>
> Cool, thank you!
>
> I've put my thoughts up in them, and pulled out what I think are
> clearly sane requirements from them into a nascent requirements.rst
> file.
>
> I haven't closed the issues, since the actual spec covering those
> requirements doesn't exist. And that leads to what is I think a fairly
> key question.
>
> Do we:
>  - incorporate PEP-3333 by reference [e.g. by saying 'any HTTP/1.{0,1}
> request will be processed as per PEP-3333']
> or
>  - do we want to alter how HTTP/1.{0,1} requests are presented (e.g.
> tackling encoding of headers etc)

Timing the question out: I'm going with the latter case: a clean new
spec with consistent handling of feature that are common to all the
supported protocols, and folk that want existing things to keep
running wrap them with an adapter we'll provide.

-Rob

-- 
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud