--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@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...] _______________________________________________ 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