RE: PATCH and WebDAV, was Re: PATCH Draft

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