Stefan Rank wrote:
> on 12.07.2006 07:53 Martin v. Löwis said the following:
> > Anthony Baxter wrote:
> >>> The right thing to do is IRIs.
> >> For 2.5, should we at least detect that it's unicode and raise a
> >> useful error?
> >
> > That can certainly be done, sure.
> >
> > Martin
>
> That
Stefan Rank wrote:
> Well, originally, I would have expected it to return a byte str(ing),
I'd assume unicode in, unicode out, and str in, str out, but since it's
always going to produce ASCII-range characters, it wouldn't matter.
Moot point anyway.
> BUT
> I am now converted and think it is best
Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> I have written a proposal to cleanup urllib as part of Google SoC. I am
> attaching the file 'soc1' with this email. Requesting you to go through the
> proposal and provide any feedback which I can incorporate in my submission.
>From your proposal:
> 2) In all modules, Fo
Following up on this 12 Jun 2004 post...
Garth wrote:
> Thomas Heller wrote:
> >Mike Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>I thought it would be nice to try to improve the mimetypes module by having
> >>it, on Windows, query the Registry to get the mapping of
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> any special reason why "in" is faster if the substring is found, but
> a lot slower if it's not in there?
Just guessing here, but in general I would think that it would stop searching
as soon as it found it, whereas until then, it keeps looking, which takes more
time. But
John J Lee wrote:
> > http://python.org/sf/1500504
> [...]
>
> At first glance, looks good. I hope to review it properly later.
>
> One point: I don't think there should be any mention of "URL" in the
> module -- we should use "URI" everywhere (see my comments on Paul's
> original version for
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>
> > Quite a few people have expressed interest in having UUID
> > functionality in the standard library, and previously on this
> > list some suggested possibly using the uuid.py module i wrote:
> >
> > http://zesty.ca/python/uuid.py
>
> +1!
+1 as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> According to RFC 2396[1] section 5.2:
RFC 2396 is obsolete. It was superseded by RFC 3986 / STD 66 early this year.
In particular, the procedure for removing dot-segments from the path component
of a URI reference -- a procedure that is only supposed to be done when
'
Paul Jimenez wrote:
> So I propose that urlsplit, the main offender, be replaced with something
> that looks like:
>
> def urlsplit(url, scheme='', allow_fragments=1, default=('','','','','')):
+1 in principle.
You should probably do a
global _parse_cache
and add 'is not None' after 'if cac
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> IIRC I did it this way because the RFC about parsing urls specifically
> prescribed it had to be done this way.
That was true as of RFC 1808 (1995-1998), although the grammar actually
allowed for a more generic interpretation.
Such an interpretation was suggested in RF
Catching up on some python-dev email, I was surprised to see that things seem
to be barrelling ahead with the adding of ElementTree to Python core without
any discussion on XML-SIG. Sidestepping XML-SIG and the proving grounds of
PyXML in order to satsify the demand for a Pythonic databinding+AP
"Martin v. L> So as that has more-or-less failed, the next natural approach is
> "let's believe in the community". For that, two things need to
> happen: the author of the package must indicate that he would like
> to see it incorporated, and the users must indicate that they like
> the package. Bo
BJ> Why does it have to be "wiki-like"? Why can't it be a wiki? MediaWiki
> seem to work pretty well for a lot of software projects that have put
> their documentation in a wiki. Talk pages for commentary and primary
> pages for reviewed content.
And inconsistent formatting from article to article
13 matches
Mail list logo
