At 03:43 PM 9/17/2010 +0200, And Clover wrote:
On 09/17/2010 02:03 PM, Armin Ronacher wrote:
In case we change the spec as Ian mentioned above, I am all for
a "wsgi.guessed_encoding" = True flag or something like that.
Yes, I'd like to see that. I believe going with *only* a
raw-or-reconstructed path_info, rather than having both path_info
and PATH_INFO, is probably best, for the middleware-dupication
reasons PJE mentioned.
A more in-depth possibility might be:
wsgi.path_accuracy =
0: script_name/path_info have been crudely reconstructed from
SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO from an unknown source. Beware!
If there is to be backwards compatibility with WSGI1, this
would be seen as the 'default value' given a missing path_accuracy.
1: script_name/path_info have been reconstructed, but it is known
that path_info is accurate, other than %2F and non-ASCII issues.
That is, it's known that the path doesn't come from IIS's broken
PATH_INFO, or the IIS error has been detected and compensated for.
2: script_name/path_info have been reconstructed using known-good
encodings for the env. The only way in which they may differ from
the original request path is that a slash might originally have
been a %2F. (This is good enough for the vast majority of
applications.)
3: script_name/path_info come directly from the request path
without any intervening mangling.
So, do you have an example of what some real-world code is going to
*do* with this information? i.e., what's the use case for knowing
the precise degree of messed-uppedness of the path? ;-)
_______________________________________________
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
