Framework descriptions vary widely in focus

[carljm]

The top of the frameworks list says "This is an alphabetic list of frameworks known to support WSGI. The level and nature of their support sometimes varies, as do the APIs they provide. The descriptions here focus on that, and not the flavor of the frameworks themselves." But this is not really true; many of the framework descriptions read like mini-advertisements for the framework, and some hardly mention WSGI at all. Either the descriptions should be consistently re-worded to focus on WSGI support, or that sentence should be removed from the top of the page.

[masklinn]

Yes a better editorial oversight might be a good idea, it would probably be better if each framework's description only described its WSGI support (does it just stand on top of a WSGI server? does it use WSGI middlewares? is it a completely independent application relying solely on its WSGI environ?), in the context of wsgi.org

Graham, what do you think?

Also, what would happen for the initial "conversion", just remove every single description and wait for the various stakeholders to describe the WSGI support of their framework?