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

[Mark Nottingham]

That blog entry is eleven printed pages. Given that PEP 333 also  
prints as eleven pages from my browser, I suspect there's some  
extraneous information in there.

Could you please summarise? Requiring all comers to read such a  
voluminous entry is a considerable (and somewhat arbitrary) bar to  
entry for the discussion.

Thanks,


On 22/09/2009, at 4:36 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:

> 2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>:
>> So, what advice do you propose about decoding bytes into strings  
>> for the
>> request-URI / method / request headers, and vice versa for response  
>> headers
>> and status code/phrase? Do you assume ASCII, Latin-1, or UTF-8? How  
>> are
>> errors handled?
>>
>> Are bodies still treated "as binary byte sequences", as per PEP 333?
>
> I thought my blog post explained that reasonably well. Ensure you read
> the numbered definitions.
>
> If you can't work it out from the blog, point at the specific thing in
> the blog you don't understand and can help. Don't really want to go
> explaining it all again.
>
> Graham
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> On 22/09/2009, at 4:07 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>
>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/