[Python-Dev] [Web-SIG] WSGI is now Python 3-friendly (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Tue Sep 28 02:41:44 CEST 2010

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:29 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:

At 02:03 PM 9/27/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:33 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: > At 12:36 PM 9/27/2010 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> All fixed. > > Nope.  I mean, sure, I checked in fixed PEP sources several hours ago, > but > python.org still doesn't show PEP 3333, or the updated version of PEP > 333. Seems Brett has fixed it. Both PEPs are now online. I wonder if it would make sense to change both from "Informational" to "Standard Track" ? From PEP 1: """ There are three kinds of PEP: * A Standards Track PEP describes a new feature or implementation for Python. * An Informational PEP describes a Python design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Python community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational PEPs do not necessarily represent a Python community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors are free to ignore Informational PEPs or follow their advice. * A Process PEP describes a process surrounding Python, or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Process PEPs are like Standards Track PEPs but apply to areas other than the Python language itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Python's codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational PEPs, they are more than recommendations, and users are typically not free to ignore them. Examples include procedures, guidelines, changes to the decision-making process, and changes to the tools or environment used in Python development. Any meta-PEP is also considered a Process PEP. """ I don't think it qualifies as a Standards PEP under the above definitions.  I made it Informational originally because it's rather like the DB API PEPs, which are Informational. I suppose we could say it's a Process PEP, or perhaps update PEP 1 to add a new category (into which the DB API PEPs would also fall), or maybe just tweak the above definitions a bit so that the Informational category makes more sense.

Hm. I would rather extend the definition of Standards Track to include API standards that are important to the community even if they do not introduce a new feature for the language or standard library. WSGI and DB-API being the two most well-known examples but I wouldn't be surprised if there were others, possibly in the NumPy world.

-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list