Re: PATCH and WebDAV, was Re: PATCH Draft

James M Snell wrote:
> I can understand why this would be desirable. I, however, am nowhere
> near qualified to discuss any reasonable considerations for WebDAV.

Well, we can help with that; it's just not clear whether we want that in 
the same spec. Many people automatically ignore things just because the 
term WebDAV comes up.

> Regarding the "DAV:supported-patch-formats" suggestion, why wouldn't the
> Accept-Patch response header be enough?

If you can get the data with PROPFIND, you may be able save another 
round trip.

Best regards, Julian