W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:24:18 +0200
Message-ID: <5411B092.2030808@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-09-11 15:27, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00>
>
> Just curious, what do people think about this?
>
> There are a few different use cases, including:
>
> * Doing it for updates to “normal” Web content — this would require both browser (or proxy) support as well as the server to track the diffs between what’s deployed. The former can come in time, but the latter is operationally difficult; it’s possible, but would take a fair amount of discipline (and some way for admins/devs to interact with the server to use this; not sure what that would look like yet).
>
> * Doing it for “HTTP APIs” — Same issues as above, maybe a bit more manageable because the APIs tend to be code-managed / database-backed more.
>
> * Doing it for the incremental update case mentioned in the draft’s appendix — I find this really intriguing, but it’s obviously half-baked.
>
> What do people think? Not asking if we should adopt it, just whether I should rev the draft.
>
> Cheers,
> ...

I read it in preparation for the Toronto meeting, and liked the idea. 
The interesting question is whether anybody is planning to actually use it?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 14:25:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC