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

Re: PATCH draft

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:10:00 -0800
Message-ID: <49837AB8.6060902@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Lisa Dusseault <lisad@messagingarchitects.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

That would be fine. The 209 response code is not critical in this case.

Regarding the Prefers header draft... if there is enough interest, I 
will revive it. I let it expire because there did not appear to be 
enough interest in pursuing it.

- James

Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> 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 22:10:42 GMT

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