>>>>> "AMK" == Andrew Kuchling <akuchlin@mems-exchange.org> writes: AMK> + Informational PEPs do not represent a Python community AMK> + consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors are free AMK> + to ignore informational PEPs or follow their advice. AMK> If people disagree about this view of informational PEPs as AMK> purely advisory, please speak up now so we can discuss this AMK> issue. This seems to match informational RFCs pretty well. It might be interesting to see what the IETF says about informational RFCs. I might word the disclaimer a little less strongly: "Informational PEPs do not necessarily represent a Python community consensus or recommendation." For things like the DB-API, I think there is fairly broad consensus. Rather than claiming there isn't, an informational PEP could just say what its status is. Jeremy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4