Message225867
| Author |
ncoghlan |
| Recipients |
benjamin.peterson, ezio.melotti, grahamd, lemburg, ncoghlan, pitrou, pje, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner |
| Date |
2014年08月25日.06:39:33 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1408948773.68.0.530186261554.issue22264@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
After reviewing the stdlib code as Serhiy suggested and reflecting on the matter for a while, I now think it's better to think of this idea in terms of formalising the concept of a "WSGI string". That is, data that has been decoded as latin-1 not because that's necessarily correct, but because it creates a valid str object that doesn't lose any information, doesn't have any surrogate escapes in it, yet can still handle arbitrary binary data.
Under that model, and using a dumps/loads inspired naming scheme (since this is effectively a serialisation format for the WSGI server/application boundary), the appropriate helpers would be:
def dump_wsgistr(data, encoding, errors='strict'):
data.encode(encoding, errors).decode('iso-8859-1')
def load_wsgistr(data, encoding, errors='strict'):
data.encode('iso-8859-1').decode(encoding, errors)
As Victor says, using surrogateescape by default is not correct. However, some of the code in wsgiref.handlers does pass a custom errors setting, so it's appropriate to make that configurable.
With this change, there would be several instances in wsgiref.handlers that could be changed from the current:
data.encode(encoding).decode('iso-8859-1')
to:
dump_wsgistr(data, encoding)
The point is that it isn't "iso-8859-1" that's significant - it's the compliance with the data format mandated by the WSGI 1.0.1 specification (which just happens to be "latin-1 decoded string"). |
|