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

Re: PATCH thoughts...

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 09:41:02 -0700
Message-Id: <AA29622E-9D20-11D8-AF45-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Jeffrey Mogul <Jeff.Mogul@hp.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

That's pretty much how I saw it, yeah.

lisa

On May 2, 2004, at 8:10 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Does the below imply that this proposal would effectively become "how 
> to use delta encoding in PUT requests," with PATCH being a means to 
> assure that it won't be misinterpreted as a plain PUT by non-PATCH 
> aware implementations?
>
> If so, there's a quite prescient note in RFC3229:
>
>>         Nothing in this specification specifically precludes the use 
>> of
>>          a delta encoding for the body of a PUT request.  However, no
>>          mechanism currently exists for the client to discover if the
>>          server can interpret such messages, and so we do not attempt 
>> to
>>          specify how they might be used.
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2004, at 3:23 PM, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:
>
>>     Modelling on the RFC3229 approach, PATCH could look like
>>     this instead:
>>
>> 	   PATCH /file.txt HTTP/1.1
>> 	   Host: foo
>> 	   If-Match: "def"
>> 	   Content-encoding: gzip
>> 	   IM: vcdiff
>>
>>            [body]
>>
>> Seems reasonable to me :-)
>>
>> -Jeff
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 12:41:42 GMT

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