- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:07:39 +0100
- To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
- CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisad@messagingarchitects.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Cyrus Daboo wrote: > Yes, that looks good, but it is expired. > > However, the definition of 209 in PATCH still seems a little odd without > reference to that. Is 209 absolutely needed in PATCH? Could that instead > be moved to James document as a separate section describing the > interaction of Prefer and PATCH? Alternatively we could progress James > document at the same time as PATCH and cross-reference - but maybe we > don't want to delay PATCH. I wouldn't object to making the PATCH I-D even simpler, and to move 209 somewhere else. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 21:08:22 UTC