Re: Declaring PEP 3333 accepted (was: PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0)
Alice Bevan–McGregor <alice-h+KYGxXtFYrqlBn2x/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.python.web |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2011-01-10 13:12:57 -0800, Guido van Rossum said: > Ok, now that we've had a week of back and forth about this, let me > repeat my "threat". Unless more concerns are brought up in the next 24 > hours, can PEP 3333 be accepted? +9001 (> 9000) > It seems a lot of people are waiting for a decision that enables > implementers to go ahead and claim PEP > 333[3] compatibility. Django, mod_wsgi, CherryPy, etc. all have solutions that would need AFIK minor tweaking before going "live", which would make adoption of PEP 3333 the fastest of any PEP I've ever seen. ;) > PEP 444 can take longer. Indeed it will! :D I have the conversion from Textile to ReST about half completed; I'll continue to poke it now that mailing list traffic seems to have died down and won't be consuming the majority of my Copious Spare Time™. ReST just doesn't jive with my neural net. :/ - Alice. _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list [email protected] Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/gcpw-web-sig%40m.gmane.org