On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:19 PM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote:
> At 12:25 AM 9/21/2009 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, for us slower (and maybe wrongly fearful) folks, could someone
>> summarize the benefits of having a WSGI specification that requires Unicode.
>> Bonus points for an explanation that does not boil down to "it will be
>> compatible with Python 3".
>
> +1. I'd really rather not have the spec dictated by the need to work around
> problems in the stdlib or language definition. Better to fix them ASAP.
>
hi,
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?
_______________________________________________
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
