W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: PATCH draft

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:07:39 +0100
Message-ID: <49836C1B.6080703@gmx.de>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:01 GMT