On Sep 16, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Ian Bicking wrote: > Well, reiterating some things I've said before: > > * This is clearly just WSGI slightly reworked, why the new name?
Agreed. Among many other reasons, it seems poor from a Python 3 marketing perspective to introduce a name change that implies something totally different from WSGI that will require major rewrites to port to. It's also a poor choice as a rebranding even if one were desirable, I think. It's terribly generic, and suggests it's somehow a successor to "Web 2.0". Nor is it very search engine friendly, and there may be trademark issues (http://www.networkedplanet.com/Products/Web3/) Also, ordering the response tuple for the very minor convenience of a couple of frameworks while simultaneously requiring them to make adjustments for the web3.* names seems strange to me. Count me for retaining the WSGI naming, and for (status, headers, body), for what little it's worth. > * It makes sense to me that the error stream should accept both bytes and > unicode, and should do a best effort to handle either. Getting encoding > errors or type errors when logging an error is very distracting. I think I agree with this too. _______________________________________________ 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
