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

RE: PATCH and WebDAV, was Re: PATCH Draft

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:09:38 -0700
To: "'James M Snell'" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'Cyrus Daboo'" <cyrus@daboo.name>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Message-ID: <000501c7b9b7$dfa932f0$9efb98d0$@org>

It makes sense to me to include application notes for a protocol
element that is hard to understand without more context of
how it will be used. If that includes examples from WebDAV
and Atompub, so be it.

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of James M Snell
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:44 AM
To: Julian Reschke
Cc: Cyrus Daboo; ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Lisa Dusseault
Subject: Re: PATCH and WebDAV, was Re: PATCH Draft

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.

Yep. It would make just as much sense to put in an Atompub
considerations section.  I'm just not sure we really should include it here.

- James
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 19:10:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:42 UTC