Re: Declaring PEP 3333 accepted (was: PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0)

At 02:52 PM 1/12/2011 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Alice Bevan­McGregor
><alice-h+KYGxXtFYrqlBn2x/[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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? It seems a lot of people are waiting for a decision
> >> that enables implementers to go ahead and claim PEP 333[3] compatibility.
> >> PEP 444 can take longer.
> >
> > With the lack of responses, can I assume this has been or will be shortly
> > marked as "accepted"?
>
>Yep. Phillip, can you do the honors?

Apparently not -- I went to check it in and found Raymond had already 
marked it "Final".  ;-)

(I'm not clear on whether there's a difference between "Final" and 
"Accepted" heredifference, but I assume that if we find some sort of 
actual error we can still fix it.)


_______________________________________________
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