On 8/1/07, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > > So to be clear, are you now suggesting that a 200 PATCH response would > > *not* have this specific meaning, and that only this new response code > > would indicate that it did have it? If so, great, we're in sync. > > Yes. Great. So I'm going to propose that we add this response code to the PATCH draft. What does everyone think? Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.comReceived on Thursday, 2 August 2007 00:29:34 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:27 GMT