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

Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:43:35 -0800
Message-Id: <FEA5AD24-0F41-4C81-B1C6-BE3AD62ACEED@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Robert Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>

On Feb 16, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>  I started
>> on a definition of a patch format for YAML late last year, but it
>> was derailed by the partitioning work.
>
> Here's a patch format for JSON in JSON:
> http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2008/02/15/restful-partial-updates/

Damn, I knew I should have finished my blog first ... a blog wave has
started and I'm still getting into my trunks.

A bit of background: At RailsConf EU, I asked DHH what it was that
Rails needed most from HTTP.next and the answer was partial updates
exactly as you describe.  My answer was to use PATCH, of course, but
the standards issue is still that there are no registered diff formats.
So, I said to myself, I know how to fix that ...

YAML is a better format for contextual diffs.  I think your json.sync
format is close, but way too verbose (we are supposed to be saving
bandwidth here, not being human-readable).  Maybe I should start a
wiki for diff formats and just start registering them.

....Roy
Received on Saturday, 16 February 2008 21:43:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:37 GMT