- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 09:41:02 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Jeffrey Mogul <Jeff.Mogul@hp.com>
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 UTC