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

[Graham Dumpleton]

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/
>
>