Ty Sarna wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Massimo Di Pierro wrote:
My experience in various
communities suggests that naming the new totally-bw-incompat thing the
same as the old thing weakens both the new thing and the old thing,
I share the same experience.
Interesting. Do you feel that Python 3.x should have been named something other
than Python?
I think that would rather have weakened both 3.x and 2.x by suggesting a fork,
placing the two in competition, when the goal was to have one supersede the
other, as is also the case here.
FWIW, I agree on this point. WSGI2 seems better than WEB3. IMO, its
OK to put a disclaimer at the top of the spec that states they are
different specs and entirely backwards incompatible. If there is
consensus to more away from WSGI, then I think a name other than WEB3 is
in order. Its just too generic.
--------------------------------------
Randy Syring
Intelicom
502-644-4776
"Whether, then, you eat or drink or
whatever you do, do all to the glory
of God." 1 Cor 10:31
_______________________________________________
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
