W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:28:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4680EA63.9020903@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net>
CC: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> That's true.  To be more clear, what I had in mind was requiring a MTI 
> diff format for one particular case, that of a server that stores 
> resources exactly as the client PUTs them, and the GET result is also 
> byte-for-byte identical.  This is a fairly common case, particularly 
> among WebDAV servers.  
> 
> For resources that are stored exactly the way they appear on the wire, I 
> cannot think of a case where a binary diff is going to cause problems. 
> 
> Thus, the language I'd proposed was something like:
> 
> In order to improve potential interoperability, servers that store 
> resources unchanged 
> (or can apply deltas as if resources are stored unchanged) are 
> RECOMMENDED to 
> support [FOO] as a common-denominator approach.
> 
> The problem with this is not the desirability of it -- for any server 
> that wants to support PATCH and returns byte-for-byte identical 
> resources, it's desirable to have a PATCH format that clients are likely 
> to know.  The problem is rather that there is no binary patch format 
> with a legitimately registered MIME type.  

And that's why we don't want to make a normative requirement here at 
all, right?

That being said, I'm happy to start work on a *simple* format that would 
work well in the WebDAV case.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 10:29:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:10 GMT