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

Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-06

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:40:59 +0200
Message-ID: <41741C4B.6010203@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>> Proposal: as both GDIFF (unclear IPR and no MIME type) and VCDIFF 
>> (unclear source license and complexity?) seem to be problematic as 
>> REQUIRED delta format, we may want to sit down and come up with a 
>> really simple delta format and use *that* in the PATCH spec (either 
>> in-line or in a separate document).
> That sure sounds reasonable; are you up for that?  I'm not given my 
> other responsibilities right now.  Does anybody know if diff -e is 
> standardizable?
> I have also looked into a standard XML diff format, and talked to Adrian 
> Mouat about standardizing his format.
>  - code: http://treepatch.sourceforge.net/  or 
> http://diffxml.sourceforge.net/
>  - dissertation/specification: 
> http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/diffxml/dissertation.ps?download
> I would think diff formats would generally be better off defined in 
> separate documents so that they can be reused, HTTP and PATCH are by no 
> means the only applications that could use a standard diff format.

I probably wouldn't have the time to take ownership, but I certainly 
would want to help. IMHO, the goal should be to have a very simple 
format for binary diffs, similar with functionality equivalent with GDIFF.

Re: "diff -e": this is part of the GNU Diff documentation 
so it should be possible to use it without IPR-fear :-)

Best regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 19:41:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:38 UTC