W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: PATCH thoughts...

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:37:37 -0700
Message-Id: <4F0D8639-9ABC-11D8-8BCF-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>

There's no diff format chosen by DeltaV, but RFC3229 identifies several 
for HTTP:

     RFC3229: Delta encoding in HTTP	    
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3229.txt

VCDIFF is a RFC, and GDIFF is a W3C Note -- those have been used by 
IETF in the past.

Lisa

On Apr 30, 2004, at 2:50 AM, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> So please voice your opinions on this issue to help me off this
>>> fence.  Should PATCH require support for one diff format, and if so,
>>> what?
>>
>> Is there a diff format that accommodates all of these:
>> 	- text patching with fuzzy offsets (like Larry Wall's patch)
>> 	- binary patching based on offsets
>> 	- patching not based on offsets
>
> Larry Wall's patch (when given unified or context diffs) can be used
> without fuzzy offsets (just disable fuzzy matching in the patcher),
> and it can be used on binary files (ugly an inefficient, because it's
> still line based and depends crucially on LF bytes).  It doesn't use
> byte offsets in either case.
>
>> If yes, use it at a SHOULD level. If not, then it looks like it would
>> be a mistake to pick a "winner" at this time.
>
> I agree, there isn't a suitable "winner" at this time.
>
> What does DAV + Delta-V propose at the moment?
>
> The obvious format for PATCH is to pick the same format that can be
> _fetched_, CVS-style, to update a workspace.  Is that in Delta-V?
>
> Another capability to aim for is a patch format that is helpful for
> resolving fuzzy matches in a 3-way merge in the same way as CVS-style
> merging -- again, choose the same as Delta-V.
>
> Finally, it would be nice to have VCDIFF-style compression integrated,
> although compressing normal patches works ok so it's not that 
> important.
>
> -- Jamie
Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 11:38:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:30 GMT