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

Re: weak etags vs PATCH, was: Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:53:43 +1100
Cc: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2302DC36-4E1C-4B66-8197-0A596BB3FC9E@mnot.net>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
So, are any changes in the draft necessary, in your collective opinion?


On 20/10/2009, at 2:33 PM, Brian Smith wrote:

> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 2009, at 6:38 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
>> There is nothing stopping the patch format from including a
>> strong version indicator, content hash, or even a context-based
>> collaborative merging mechanism in the format itself.  The notion
>> that PATCH must use conditionals is absurd given that the original
>> idea came from the patch command that intentionally supports
>> non-overlapping edits in any sequence.
>
> Yes, of course. I overlooked the obvious there.
> Regards,
> Brian
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 02:54:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:12 GMT