On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 19:19 -0400, P.J. Eby wrote: > Should we ditch that, and say, "hey, if you want Python 2.x code > samples, go see PEP 333?"
That seems reasonable to me: if there is indeed never going to be a Python 2.8, there is no way the PEP can ever be accepted for a Python 2 release anyway. Given this, I might go further and suggest dropping all mention of Python 2. It might make the wording issues easier. (Although, ahem, that would mean a bunch of rewriting for some poor soul.) > 2. Make the CGI sample in 3333 do an indiscriminate transcode (which > only takes a few lines) and add a note to indicate that a robust CGI > implementation should only do it to CGI variables Or go straight for unmolested os.environ, as long as there is that note that it's not really the Right Thing. If we're going to be wrong for some cases either way, might as well go for the simplest. The PEP code needs to be illustrative more than it needs to be 100% correct. -- And Clover mailto:a...@doxdesk.com http://www.doxdesk.com skype:uknrbobince gtalk:chat?jid=bobi...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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
