Re: What is the point of QP?

On Oct 21, 2005, at 1:04 PM, David Binger wrote:
> QP uses an htmltext-like class that is a subclass of unicode, and it
> organizes the publisher and request and response instances a little
> differently from Quixote.

For unicode applications (done in quixote), is it safe to assume that 
this htmltext-like unicode subclass is the natural replacement 
(evolution) for htmltext? Similarly, qpy seems like the natural 
replacement (evolution) of ptl? Can these be used in quixote now? Will 
a future quixote adopt these instead?

Given the many similarities between quixote and qp, and given the 
purposes of each (generic object publisher, specialized application 
framework) what are the reasons why qp is a distinct package, rather 
than not being built on top of quixote?

Maybe the above, for a clean implementation of qp, would have required 
disruptive changes to quixote. Do you think however that (with possibly 
changes to quixote) qp will grow to use it? (i.e. reduce duplication of 
generic classes for http/request/response etc)

mario