On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 17:47 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote: > > > > In the past when we've gotten down to specifics, the only holdup has > been > > > SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO, hence my suggestion to eliminate those. > > > > I think I favor PJE's suggestion: let WSGI deal only in bytes. > > I'd prefer that WSGI 2 was defined in terms of a "bytes with benefits" > type (Python 2's ``str`` with an optional encoding attribute as a hint > for cast to unicode str) instead of Python 3-style bytes. > > But if I had to make the Hobson's choice between Python 3 style bytes > and Python 3 style str, I'd choose bytes. If I then needed to write > middleware or applications, I'd use WebOb or an equivalent library to > enable a policy which converted those bytes to strings on my behalf. > Making it easy to write "raw" middleware or applications without using > such a library doesn't seem as compelling a goal as being able to easily > write one which allowed me direct control at the raw level. > What are the concrete problems you envision with text request headers, text (URL-quoted) path, and text response status and headers? -- Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org
_______________________________________________ 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
