Ian Bicking ha scritto:
[...]
Fine for me, but of course we need to do this as:
1) Errata to WSGI 1.0
or
2) WSGI 1.1
or
3) WSGI 2.0
You can't just modify the current WSGI 1.0 spec.
I'm for 2), with the other clarifications about WSGI we have discussed
in the past.
I'm for 1. What other clarifications were you thinking of?
Here is a list of messages I have posted in the past.
- start_response and error checking
25 September 2007
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/2007-September/002771.html
- hop-by-hop headers handling
1 October 2007
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/2007-October/002775.html
- HTTP_CONTENT_TYPE and HTTP_CONTENT_LENGTH
12 December 2007
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/2007-December/003014.html
- a possible error in the WSGI spec
20 December 2007
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/2007-December/003064.html
- calling start_response and the write from a separate thread
27 December 2007
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/2007-December/003104.html
- WSGI and PEP 325
20 May 2008
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/2008-May/003438.html
I'm rather sure there were other threads about clarifications of WSGI 1.0.
One of these was about if a WSGI gateway is allowed to skip the
generation of the request body (assuming the WSGI applications returns a
generator) if this is not required (the client cached copy of the
request entity is up to date and the server is going to return 304 Not
Modified)
Regards Manlio Perillo
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-SIG@python.org
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
