[Web-SIG] Getting back to WSGI grass roots.

[Aaron Watters]

--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumpleton at gmail.com> wrote:


> So, rather than throw away completely the idea of bytes
> everywhere,
> and rewrite the WSGI specification, we could instead say
> that the
> existing conceptual idea of WSGI 1.0 is still valid, and
> just build on
> top of it a translation interface to present that as
> unicode.

Seconded.  There should be a lower level that talks bytes
and a higher level that talks unicode or whatever.
There should also be a way for 
even higher levels to reach down
to the lower level to see the bytes before they got
misdecoded by the unicode layer because this will
likely be needed in some cases.  Is there anything
wrong with just adding decoded interpretations to 
the WSGI environment as separate entries?

Also, everything should be as orthogonal as possible.
One problem I have with most Web tools and frameworks
is they tend to take over and do everything at once
when I really only want a little bit of help.  WSGI 1
is nice because it just abstracts HTTP and stops there.
It was a beautiful piece of work.  Kudos.

    -- Aaron Watters
http://aaron.oirt.rutgers.edu/myapp/docs/W1100_1600.openFlashCharts

==
All problems in computer science can be solved by 
another level of indirection -- David Wheeler
  [of course the Java folk have proven over and over
   again that you can have too many layers...]