Re: Required DIFF format [was Re: PATCH Draft]

Thank you for the clarification.

Larry Masinter wrote:
>    Better to start with something known than starting from scratch.
>    No known IP claims.
>    Range retrieval is a kind of "server patch client".
> 
> PATCH focuses on client-patch-server. But there's no reason not
> to consider server-patch-client, and consider range retrieval
> to be a special case of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of James M Snell
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:42 AM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Lisa Dusseault'; 'Stefan Eissing';
> ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Required DIFF format [was Re: PATCH Draft]
> 
> 
> What would be the rationale for this?
> 
> - James
> 
> Larry Masinter wrote:
>> I suggest multipart/byteranges as the basis for a possible MTI format for
>> partial updates.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>