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

Mark Nottingham mnot at mnot.net
Tue Sep 22 08:52:16 CEST 2009 

You're twisting my words; nowhere did I say i wasn't willing to read  
the PEP. What I did say was that a proposal can and should be made in  
less than eleven pages; I'd like to give my feedback, both because I  
use Python and because I have some interest in HTTP. However, my time  
is limited, and I already have a stack of other things to review on my  
desk.

He who writes the most words does not (hopefully, for the sake of the  
Python community) win. I appreciate that you've taken the time to  
reason out a proposal, but the minutia of how you got to that place  
should not obscure the proposal itself.

I'm not sure how to take your "ticket monkeys" comment, so I'll ignore  
it.



On 22/09/2009, at 4:44 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:

> 2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>:
>> 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.
>
> If you aren't willing to read the PEP to understand WSGI why are you
> even wanting to participate in the discussion in the first place? This
> is a quite detailed discussion about the future of the WSGI
> specification and not an IRC channel manned by ticket monkeys. :-(
>
> Graham
>
>> 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/
>>
>>


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

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list