Hi,

On 9/16/10 7:56 PM, Ty Sarna wrote:
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/)
The name is not set in stone. I am very happy to accept WSGI 2 as a name for that, but we did not want to totally bypass the discussions on web-sig here and announce something that clearly says it will be WSGI 2 when only a small set of the people here participated directly in the writing of that PEP.

* 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.
There are no such stream objects on Python 3 unless I am missing something. Furthermore there are no libraries on Python 3 that would emit string information as text, so I don't see the reason for considering bytes and unicode for that stream.


Regards,
Armin
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to