[Web-SIG] PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0

[Chris McDonough]

On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 09:21 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Graham, I hope that you can stop being grumpy about the process that
> is being followed and start using your passion to write up a critique
> of the technical merits of Alice's draft. You don't have to attack the
> whole draft at once -- you can start by picking one or two important
> issues and try to guide a discussion here on web-sig to tease out the
> best solutions.  Please  understand that given the many different ways
> people use and implement WSGI there may be no perfect solution within
> reach -- writing a successful standard is the art of the compromise.
> (If you still think the process going forward should be different,
> please write me off-list with your concerns.)
> 
> Everyone else on this list, please make a new year's resolution to
> help the WSGI 2.0 standard become a reality in 2011.

I think Graham mostly has an issue with this thing being called "WSGI
2".

FTR, avoiding naming arguments is why I titled the original PEP "Web3".
I knew that if I didn't (even though personally I couldn't care less if
it was called Buick or McNugget), people would expend effort arguing
about the name rather than concentrate on the process of creating a new
standard.  They did anyway of course; many people argued publically
wishing to rename Web3 to WSGI2.  On balance, though, I think giving the
standard a "neutral" name before it's widely accepted as a WSGI
successor was (and still is) a good idea, if only as a conflict
avoidance strategy. ;-)

That said, I have no opinion on the technical merits of the new PEP 444
draft; I've resigned myself to using derivatives of PEP 3333 "forever".
It's good enough.  Most of the really interesting stuff seems to happen
at higher levels anyway, and the benefit of a new standard doesn't
outweigh the angst caused by trying to reach another compromise.  I'd
suggest we just embrace it, adding minor tweaks as necessary, until we
reach some sort of technical impasse it doesn't address.

- C