W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range

From: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:53:25 -0800
Message-ID: <e3f21b1a0802161053k3b5e970dk76688762158cd7cb@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Brian Smith" <brian@briansmith.org>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> 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

Received on Saturday, 16 February 2008 18:53:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:44 UTC