On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Georg Brandl <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 16.09.2010 23:07, schrieb James Mills: >>> - the web3 name >>> >>> If there is any value in this PEP and we find something to decide on, >>> there is no reason this couldn't be WSGI 2. But until it's just >>> something a small part of the web-sig community worked on directly >>> a separate name is a good thing I think, because it does not reserve >>> the name "WSGI 2" for something that might actually become WSGI 2 >>> in case this PEP gets rejected. >> >> I personally still don't see any real benefit to changing the key names >> from "wsgi" to "web3" (or whatever). I would prefer it remain the >> same. If you're going to use Python3, you know you're using Python3 >> (you don't need "web3" key names to know that). (subjective) > > That statement shows another weakness of the "web3" name: this spec is not > in the least exclusive to Python 3. (Which would be a bit useless, having > two incompatible WSGI/web specs on two incompatible Python versions.) > > The goal would be to first migrate to WSGI2/web3, and *then* have an easy > transition going to Python 3. > > Georg > also WSGI acronym is defining better the purpose by itself than "web3" which mean nothing.
- benoit _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list [email protected] Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
