Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range

>
> because (a) text/plain isn't a MIME type for a patch format, and (b) it
>

You mean, text/plain is invalid for bytes? Why would text/plan be invalid
for a patch format?

>
> By the way, I really like the idea of a patch format based on
> multipart/byte-ranges; I even think that such a format should be a
> SHOULD requirement for servers that implement PATCH.
>

Really? As you pointed out above, Content-Range is not specified for
requests. Secondly, IMHO, patch format does not need to be constrained to
byte-ranges.

Regards,
Subbu