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

Mark Nottingham mnot at mnot.net
Tue Sep 22 09:17:39 CEST 2009 

No worries, and apologies for the manner of asking; I just wanted to  
provide feedback from an HTTP perspective before it got too far down  
the road. I'm happy to wait a bit longer for it to bake if that's more  
helpful.

Cheers,


On 22/09/2009, at 5:10 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:

> 2009/9/22 Mark Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>:
>> 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.
>
> Sorry if I come across as being short.
>
> None of us has time and this whole WSGI on Python 3.0 issue has been
> going on since start of last year. Many of us are quite tired of it
> all. I also don't personally know who you are, not recollecting seeing
> your name in any past discussions. I am told though you were involved
> back at time of original WSGI specification drafting, so apologies.
>
> The ticket monkeys reference is just the allusion to a help desk. I
> always think of what happens when people jump on IRC as being worst
> case. That is, they treat people there like help desk staff who only
> exist to serve them and not anyone else. So, you see people who have a
> complex problem, pose a question in a single line. They then expect a
> even more complex solution to there problem, usually expressed in one
> line again.
>
> There is a book I have been meaning to read called the 'Trusted
> Advisor' which apparently goes on about providing assistance to others
> as comparing the idea of being like a ticket monkey (help desk),
> versus building a relationship with people in order to understand
> their real issues and provide better solutions. Obviously being an
> advisor rather than a help desk is ultimately going to be better for
> the people needing help, but if the customer has the frame of mind
> that you are just the help desk and don't want to put any effort into
> the relationship, it is hard to try and be that advisor.
>
> So, I felt a bit like a help desk in the way I interpreted your  
> comments.
>
> Graham
>
>> 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/
>>
>>


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

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list